RLR-V.4-2017

RLR-V.4-2017

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2017-10-02 - 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. 4 - 2017 Ukwakira, 2017 Law Report, V. 4 - 2017 October, 2017

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2017 Ukwakira, 2017 Law Report , V. 4 - 2017 October, 2017

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 4

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

IKINYARWANDA

Page 6

ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y‟UBWANDITSI ...................................iii IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ..................................................... xi AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................. xii Re URUGAGA RW‟ABAVOKA MU RWANDA .................... 1 HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N‟UNDI(1) .................. 23 SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 33 SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N‟ABANDI .......................... 57 RRA v. RUHANDO ................................................................. 79 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA .................. 101 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA ............................. 123

i

Page 8

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO

BATEGUYE

IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

iii

Page 9

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwalimu muri Kaminuza y‟u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Umwanditsi wa Komite Umugenzuzi w‟Inkiko

BAGABO Faustin : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Umushinjacyaha ku rwego Rw’Igihugu

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KALIWABO Charles : Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru iv

Page 10

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga

RUBANGO K. Epimaque : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko UWANTEGE Yvette : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

Page 12

IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Iyi nimero IV [2017] niyo isoza umwaka wa 2017. Muri uyu mwaka, twishimiye uburyo mwagiye mugaragaza ko Icyegeranyo cy‟ibyemezo by‟Inkiko kibageraho kandi kikabagirira akamaro mu mirimo yanyu ya buri munsi. Muri iyi nomero murasangamo imanza zirindwi (7) zikubiyemo imanza ebyiri (2) z‟imbonezamubano, urubanza (1) rwerekeye imiburanishirize idasanzwe, imanza ebyiri (2) z‟ubucuruzi, n‟imanza ebyiri (2) nshinjabyaha. Tuboneyeho no kubibutsa ko imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do. Prof. Sam RUGEGE Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga Perezida w‟Inama Nkuru y‟Ubucamanza

vii

Page 13

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi.

INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2017] 4 RLR

viii

Page 14

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Nshinga rya Republika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 96(3)...............................................................6 ingingo ya 201(1) n‟icya (2)..........................................82 Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo za 53 kugeza ku ya 61.....................................................6 Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 247 na 249.............126 Itegeko Ngenga Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ubasha by‟inkiko, ingingo ya 160.........36 Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 76, iya 8(2) n‟iya 52(3).........................................................26 Itegeko Nº83/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n‟imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 2(1)..........................................6 Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 14......36 Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2 n‟iya 129..................26 Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo kuwa 10/9/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 2(4º) na 21(2o).........................................................................126 ix

Page 15

x

Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, ingingo za 8 na 47..................................................................................36 Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo za 26, 27, 28(4) n‟iya 29............................82 Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 11.......................................82 Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65...........................126 Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw‟umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 23....60 Itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001, ryerekeye itangwa ry‟indishyi ku bahohotewe biturutse ku mpanuka zo ku mubiri zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 9(1)......................................60 Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro No001/2007 yo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku nyungu, ingingo ya 2.............................................82 Itegeko-Ngenga Nº16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/6/2004 rigena imiterere, ububasha n‟imikorere y‟Inkiko-Gacaca, ingingo ya 51.............................................................................................104 Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo kuwa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 43....126 Itegeko Nº42/1988 ryo kuwa 27 Ukwakira 1988 rishyiraho Interuro y‟ibanze n‟igitabo cya mbere cy‟Urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 198, iya 199 n‟iya 200.............................................................................................60

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 16

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Ishyaka riharanira demokarasi no kurengera ibidukikije mu Rwanda (DGPR) v. Leta y‟u Rwanda, RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS, rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku wa 8/10/2015......................6 Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva, ICTR (Appeal Judgment), Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, 14 December 2011, para. 697......................................................104 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para. 171.................................................................................104 Prosecutor v. Mucic et al., ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195......................................104

xi

Page 17

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza mbonezamubano – Urupfu rw‟umwe mu bashakanye baburana mu rubanza – Ufite inshingano zo gukomeza urubanza igihe abashakanye bafite inyungu zibangamiranye mu rubanza rumwe rurimo n‟undi muburanyi – Kugira ngo umuburanyi atange ikirego agomba kugaragaza inyungu kandi igomba kugumaho kugeza urubanza rurangiye – Iyo umwe mu bashakanye apfuye, usigaye yegukana umutungo wose ku bw‟itegeko bigatuma urubanza ruwushingiyeho hagati yabo rurangira – Uburenganzira bwo kwegukana umutungo bujyana n‟inshingano ziwukomokaho bityo uwegukanye akaba ariwe ukomeza urubanza hagati ye n‟umuburanyi usigaye kabone n‟ubwo yaba yaramuregeye mu kirego kimwe n‟uwo bashakanye wapfuye – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2 n‟iya 129 – Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 76, iya 8(2) n‟iya 52(3).

HABIYAKARE v.

GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(1)......................................................................23 Ikirego cy‟indishyi – Amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi – Ikoreshwa ry‟ihame “le criminel tient le civil en etat” – N‟ubwo iri hame ari ndemyagihugu, ntibihagije kugira ngo ryubahirizwe mu rubanza urwo arirwo rwose mu gihe ikiburanwa atari indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha, bityo iryo hame ntiryahagarika ikirego cy‟indishyi zikomoka ku xii

Page 18

xiii

masezerano y‟ubwishingizi – Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 14 – Itegeko Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ubasha by‟inkiko, ngingo ya 160.

SORAS

ASSURANCES

GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd................................................................33 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza nshinjabyaha – Uburenganzira busesuye bw‟ubushinjacyaha bwo gukurikirana cyangwa kudakurikirana – Kuba umwe mu nshoreke atakurikiranywe, ntibivuga ko uwakurikiranywe agomba kuba umwere – Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 43. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA..................123 Amategeko agenga umusoro – Isoresha nta nteguza – Inyandiko ziherekeza imenyekanisha – Isoresha nta nteguza rikorwa iyo imenyesha ry‟umusoro ritaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa ziteganywa n‟amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 28(4) – Amabwiriza ya Komoseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟amahoro No001/2007 yo kuwa 15/06/2007 ashyira mu bikorwa Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku nyungu, ingingo ya 2. RRA v. RUHANDO........................................................79 Igipimo kigenderwaho iyo habayeho isoresha nta nteguza – Iyo habaye isoresha nta nteguza, hakoreshwa igipimo giteganywa n‟Itegeko mu kubara umusoro mu buryo bucishirije – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 19

rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 29, Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo 11. RRA v. RUHANDO........................................................79 Igihe cyagenwe cyo gusoresha – Kuba Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyari gifite uburenganzira bwo gukosora inyandiko y‟imenyesha ry‟umusoro ariko ntikibikore mu gihe cyagenwe n„amategeko ubwo burenganzira burazima – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 26 n‟iya 27. RRA v. RUHANDO........................................................79 Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Uburyozwacyaha bw‟umuyobozi – Haba hari uburyozwacyaha mu gihe umuyobozi yarazi cyangwa yashoboraga kumenya ko abo ayoboye bagiye gukora icyaha ntabakumire ndetse na nyuma yo kugikora ntabafatire ibihano. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA.......101 Ishingiro ry‟uburyozwacyaha ku muyobozi – Ntibukomoka ku byaha byakozwe n‟abo ayobora ahubwo aba aryozwa kudashyira mu bikorwa inshingano ze zo kuyobora uko bikwiye. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA.......101 Umuyobozi uryozwa icyaha – Habaho uburyozwacyaha kabone n‟ubwo abo bayobozi baba batarashyizweho mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA.......101 Ubushoreke – Kubana nk‟inshoreke mu buryo buhoraho – Byitwa kubana mu buryo buhoraho hitawe kugihe bamarana babana, kiba cyaratumye rubanda n‟abaturanyi bababonamo imyitwarire y‟umugabo n‟umugore babana xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 20

hatitawe ku burebure bw‟icyo gihe bamarana, gusa uko kubana kwabo kugaherekezwa n‟ibikorwa bifatika ku buryo buri wese ubibona, nta gushidikanya agira mu kwemeza ko abo bantu babana nk‟umugabo n‟umugore – Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 247. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA..................123 Indishyi – Igenwa ry‟indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga – Indishyi mbangamirabukungu – Abemerewe guhabwa indishyi mbangamirabukungu – Indishyi mbangamirabukungu zihabwa abaribatunzwe na nyakwigendera bateganywa n‟amategeko ndetse n‟abandiyaratunzeiyo babigaragarije ibimenyetso – Itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001, ryerekeye itangwa ry‟indishyi ku bahohotewe biturutse ku mpanuka zo ku mubiri zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 9(1). SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI...............57 Indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano – Ibarwa ry‟indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano – Umushahara muto ntaregwa – Indishyi z‟ibangamira ku muco zibarwa hashingiwe ku mushahara muto ntaregwa wemewe n‟amategeko – Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw‟umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 23 SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI...............57 Indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha hagati y‟abashyingiranywe – Ntibibujijwe ko umuntu yategekwa guha uwo bashyingiranywe indishyi z‟akababaro zijyanye n‟icyaha yamukoreye mu gihe kimuhama, kabone n‟iyo baba baravanze umutungo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA..................123 xv

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 21

Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Iyakirwa ry‟ikirego – Ibishingirwaho mu busabe bw‟isobanurampamo – Uwatanze ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu rimufitiye ku giti cye, kubo ahagarariye badashobora kwitangira ikirego cyangwa ko abikoze mu nyungu rusange, kugaragaza ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by‟ubutegetsi kandi bireba inyungu rusange bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by‟ingingo y‟Itegeko cyangwa hagaragajwe ko hari amagambo ari mu Itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bivuguruzanya kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Kutakira ikirego – Ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo ntigishobora kwakirwa iyo kiri mu rubanza rutararangira kuburanishwa cyangwa rutarangiza inzira zisanzwe z‟ijurira. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Itumizwa rya Leta mu rubanza rw‟isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko – Iyo hari ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ni ngombwa ko Leta ihamagazwa kugira ngo igire icyo ivuga kuri ubwo busabe. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA.........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Itegeko rikurikizwa mu rubanza rw‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Ibiteganywa n‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2002 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, mu ngingo zaryo zirebana n‟imiburanishirize y‟ibirego byerekeranye no kwemeza ko amasezerano xvi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 22

mpuzamahanga cyangwa itegeko binyuranyije n‟Itegeko Nshinga nibyo bigomba kwifashishwa. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Ingaruka zaryo – Iyo hakozwe isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko, icyemezo gifashwe ntikireba gusa uwasabye ko itegeko risobanurwa ahubwo kireba buri wese harimo n‟abataratanze ikirego, kandi cyanashingirwaho mu bihe bizaza bitabaye ngombwa kongera gusaba Urukiko gukora isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ryamaze kurikorerwa. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Uruhare rw‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda – Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ubusabe rwashyikirijwe, rugafata icyemezo ko isobanurampamo rikenewe cyangwa ridakenewe, ryaba rikenewe ubwo busabe bibaye ngombwa rukabukorera ubugororangingo, rukabushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kandi uruhare rwa rwo rugomba gukomeza kugeza Urukiko ruburanishije icyo kirego – Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ingingo ya 96(3). Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Icyemezo cy‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda – Icyemezo cy‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda kubijanye n‟ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko bwanyujijwe kuri urwo Urugaga ntikijuririrwa. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Ibigomba gugaragazwa n‟Urukiko mu gutanga isobanurampamo y‟amategeko – xvii

AMAGAMBO MPINE

Page 23

Rugomba kugaragaza niba ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry‟Itegeko rishobora gutuma ryumvikana mu buryo butandukanye, niba hajya habaho gutandukira mu gusobanura itegeko no kurikoresha ku buryo bidahura n‟icyatumye rijyaho cyangwa ntirishobore gukemura ikibazo ryari rigamije gukemura kandi Urukiko rugomba gutanga ibisobanuro by‟itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo mu gihe imyandikire yaryo itera urujijo, kwagura ibisobanuro by‟itegeko mu gihe hagaragara ko hari ibyo ritavuze hakagaragara icyuho mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryaryo. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA........1 Ubukemurampaka – Imbibi z‟amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka – Kuba mu masezerano y‟ubukemurampaka impande zombi zumvikanye ko abakemurampaka bazasuzuma ibikubiye mu myanzuro y‟urega n‟iy‟uregwa, kandi mu myanzuro y‟urega bikaba bigaragara ko yasabye n‟inyungu z‟ubukererwe, ntibyafatwa nko kurenga imbibi z‟ayo masezerano mu gihe abakemurampaka bafashe icyemezo kuri izo nyungu – Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 8 n‟iya 47.

SORAS

ASSURANCES

GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd................................................................33

xviii ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

Page 24

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

Page 26

IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’URUBANZA

RWIHARIYE

Page 28

1

Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU

RWANDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC – [(Rugege, P.J., Mugenzi, Kayitesi R., Kanyange, Mukamulisa, Gatete, Ngagi, Karimunda na Muhumuza, J.) 28 Mata 2017] Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Iyakirwa ry‟ikirego – Ibishingirwaho mu busabe bw‟isobanurampamo – Uwatanze ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu rimufitiye ku giti cye, kubo ahagarariye badashobora kwitangira ikirego cyangwa ko abikoze mu nyungu rusange, kugaragaza ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by‟ubutegetsi kandi bireba inyungu rusange bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by‟ingingo y‟Itegeko cyangwa hagaragajwe ko hari amagambo ari mu Itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bivuguruzanya kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. Itegeko nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Kutakira ikirego – Ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo ntigishobora kwakirwa iyo kiri mu rubanza rutararangira kuburanishwa cyangwa rutarangiza inzira zisanzwe z‟ijurira. Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Itumizwa rya Leta mu rubanza rw‟isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko – Iyo hari ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ni ngombwa ko Leta ihamagazwa kugira ngo igire icyo ivuga kuri ubwo busabe. Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Itegeko rikurikizwa mu rubanza rw‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Ibiteganywa n‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa

Page 29

13/06/2002 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, mu ngingo zaryo zirebana n‟imiburanishirize y‟ibirego byerekeranye no kwemeza ko amasezerano mpuzamahanga cyangwa itegeko binyuranyije n‟Itegeko Nshinga nibyo bigomba kwifashishwa. Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Ingaruka zaryo – Iyo hakozwe isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko, icyemezo gifashwe ntikireba gusa uwasabye ko itegeko risobanurwa ahubwo kireba buri wese harimo n‟abataratanze ikirego, kandi cyanashingirwaho mu bihe bizaza bitabaye ngombwa kongera gusaba Urukiko gukora isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ryamaze kurikorerwa. Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Uruhare rw‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda – Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ubusabe rwashyikirijwe, rugafata icyemezo ko isobanurampamo rikenewe cyangwa ridakenewe, ryaba rikenewe ubwo busabe bibaye ngombwa rukabukorera ubugororangingo, rukabushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kandi uruhare rwa rwo rugomba gukomeza kugeza Urukiko ruburanishije icyo kirego – Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ingingo ya 96(3). Itegeko Nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Icyemezo cy‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda – Icyemezo cy‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda kubijanye n‟ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko bwanyujijwe kuri urwo Urugaga ntikijuririrwa. Itegeko nshinga – Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko – Ibigomba gugaragazwa n‟Urukiko mu gutanga isobanurampamo y‟amategeko – Rugomba kugaragaza niba ishyirwa mu bikorwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2

Page 30

ry‟Itegeko rishobora gutuma ryumvikana mu buryo butandukanye, niba hajya habaho gutandukira mu gusobanura itegeko no kurikoresha ku buryo bidahura n‟icyatumye rijyaho cyangwa ntirishobore gukemura ikibazo ryari rigamije gukemura kandi Urukiko rugomba gutanga ibisobanuro by‟itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo mu gihe imyandikire yaryo itera urujijo, kwagura ibisobanuro by‟itegeko mu gihe hagaragara ko hari ibyo ritavuze hakagaragara icyuho mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryaryo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 rimaze kuvugururwa muri 2015, ryahaye Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ububasha bwo gukora isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko, rinagena ko Umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu ashobora gusaba isobanurampamo abinyujije ku Rugaga rw‟Abavoka. Bityo Urugaga rwagiye rushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ubusabe bw‟abaturage burebana n‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko, maze uru Urukiko rukahamagaza Urugaga kurusobanurira ibijyanye n‟ubwo busabe. Urugaga rwasabye Urukiko ko iryo buranisha ryaba risubitswe kugira ngo Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rubanze rutange isobanurampamo ry‟ingingo ya 96, igika cya 3 y‟Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015 mu rwego rwo kumenya uruhare rw‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu itangwa n‟iburanisha ry‟ibirego bisaba isobanurampamo. Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwakiriye ubusabe bw‟Urugaga, kandi rutumiza Leta y‟u Rwanda mu iburanisha. Leta y‟u Rwanda yifuje ko habanza gusuzumwa ishingiro ryo kuyitumiza mu manza zirebana n‟isobanurampamo kuko ntaho amategeko yigeze ateganya ko ihamagazwa muri bene izo manza. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 3

Page 31

Mu gusobanura ingingo isabirwa isobanurampamo, Rugaga ruvuga ko iyo ingingo itera urujujo ku buryo ishobora gufatwa mu buryo bubiri. Ku ruhande rumwe iyo ngingo ishobora kumvikana nk‟aho Urugaga ari inzira yo kunyuzamo ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko nta kindi cyitaweho, icyo gihe bikaba bivuze ko Urugaga rudashobora kwanga gushyikiriza Urukiko ubusabe bw‟urega. Ku rundi ruhande, iyo ngingo ishobora kumvikanisha ko Urugaga rugomba kugira uruhare mu busabe rwanyujijweho hagatangwa gusa ubusabe ku ngingo zaba zirimo ikibazo cy‟imyumvire, byaba na ngombwa rukagira inama abarunyujijeho ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo mu gihe rusanga ridakenewe. Ku ruhande rwa Leta, icyifuzo cyayo ni uko mu isobanurampamo ry‟igika cya 3 cy‟iyo ngingo, Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwakwemeza ko Urugaga rufite ububasha bwo kwemera, kwanga cyangwa kugorora ubusabe rwagejejweho, rukajya ruhamagarwa rugatanga ibisobanuro. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Iyo hari ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ni ngombwa ko Leta ihamagazwa kugira ngo igire icyo ibivugaho, kuko ni nayo iri mu mwanya mwiza wo kumenya icyari kigamijwe itegeko rijyaho, kandi kuyitumiza mw‟iburanisha ntibyafatwa nko kuyigira umuburanyi ahubwo ni mu rwego rwo gutanga ibitekerezo byafasha Urukiko mu gutanga isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko.

2. Kubera akamaro n‟uburemere bw‟ibirego byerekeranye n‟isobanurampamo, mu gihe nta tegeko rirateganya uko izo manza ziburanishwa, hagomba kwifashishwa ibiteganywa n‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2002 rigena ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4

Page 32

imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, mu ngingo zaryo zirebana n‟imiburanishirize y‟ibirego byerekeranye no kwemeza ko amasezerano mpuzamahanga cyangwa itegeko binyuranyije n‟Itegeko Nshinga kuko bene izi manza zose zihuriyeho ku kuba ko zose zireba inyungu rusange kandi zikaba zicibwa ku rwego rwa mbere n‟urwa nyuma mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga.

3. Iyo hakozwe isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko, icyemezo gifashwe ntikireba gusa uwasabye ko itegeko risobanurwa ahubwo kireba buri wese harimo n‟abataratanze ikirego, kandi cyanashingirwaho mu bihe bizaza bitabaye ngombwa kongera gusaba Urukiko gukora isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ryamaze kurikorerwa.

4. Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ubusabe rwashyikirijwe, rugafata icyemezo ko isobanurampamo rikenewe cyangwa ridakenewe, ryaba rikenewe ubwo busabe bibaye ngombwa rukabukorera ubugororangingo rukabushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga kandi uruhare rwa rwo rugakomeza kugeza Urukiko ruburanishije icyo kirego kandi icyemezo cy‟Urugaga kubirebana n‟iyakirwa ry‟ubwo busabe ntikijuririwa.

5. Mu gutanga ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo, uwagitanze agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu isobanurampamo rimufitiye ku giti cye, kubo ahagarariye badashobora kwitangira ikirego cyangwa ko abikoze mu nyungu rusange, ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by‟ubutegetsi kandi bireba inyungu rusange bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by‟ingingo y‟Itegeko cyangwa hagaragajwe ko hari amagambo ari mu Itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bivuguruzanya kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 5

Page 33

6. Ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo ntigishobora kwakirwa iyo kiri mu rubanza rutararangiza kuburanishwa cyangwa rutararangiza inzira zisanzwe z‟ijurira.

7. Mu gutanga isobanurampamo y‟amategeko Urukiko rugomba kugaragaza niba ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry‟itegeko rishobora gutuma ryumvikana mu buryo butandukanye, niba hajya habaho gutandukira mu gusobanura itegeko no kurikoresha ku buryo bidahura n‟icyatumye rijyaho cyangwa ntirishobore gukemura ikibazo ryari rigamije gukemura kandi Urukiko rugomba gutanga ibisobanuro by‟itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo mu gihe imyandikire yaryo itera urujijo, kwagura ibisobanuro by‟itegeko mu gihe hagaragara ko hari ibyo ritavuze hakagaragara icyuho mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryaryo. Ikirego gifite ishingiro. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Republika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, ingingo ya 96(3). Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ingingo za 53 kugeza ku ya 61. Itegeko Nº83/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n‟imikorere byarwo, ingingo ya 2(1). Imanza zifashishijwe: Ishyaka riharanira demokarasi no kurengera ibidukikije mu Rwanda (DGPR) v. Leta y‟u Rwanda, RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS, rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku wa 8/10/2015. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6

Page 34

Inyandiko z’abahanga: Reginald Parker, Administrative Interpretations, University of Miami Law School, 5U. Miami L. Rev.533 (1951). Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, Cuba 27 /8/- 7/9/1990. John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012). John F. McCarthy, The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. Urubanza I. INCAMAKE Y’IKIBAZO [1] Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rwagiye rushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ubusabe bw‟abaturage bwanyuzwaga ku Rugaga bujyanye n‟isobanurampamo rya zimwe mu ngingo z‟amategeko nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 nk‟uko ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Nyuma, Urugaga rwaje kwakira inyandiko z‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ziruhamagaza kuza gusobanurira Urukiko ibijyanye n‟ubwo busabe bw‟isobanurampamo mu manza zari ziteganyijwe ku tariki ya 31/01/2017. [2] Ni muri urwo rwego, Urugaga rwandikiye Perezida w‟Urukiko rusaba ko iburanisha ku busabe bw‟isobanurampamo bwari bwaratanzwe n‟abaturage Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 7

Page 35

babunyujije ku Rugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda ryari riteganyijwe tariki ya 31/01/2017 ryaba risubitswe kugira ngo Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rubanze rutange isobanurampamo ry‟ingingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko Nshinga ryo muri 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015 mu rwego rwo kumenya uruhare rw‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu itangwa, n‟iburanisha ry‟ibirego bisaba isobanurampamo. [3] Ikirego cyasuzumwe mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 05/04/2017, Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda ruhagarariwe na Me Bagabo Faustin na Me Basomingera Alberto naho Leta y‟u Rwanda ihagariwe na Me Rubango K. Epimaque. Mbere yuko urubanza rutangira, Me Rubango yifuje ko habanza gusuzumwa ishingiro ryo gutumiza Leta mu manza ku isobanurampamo. II. IBIBAZO BISUZUMWA MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO Kumenya niba Leta y’u Rwanda itaragombaga gutumizwa muri uru rubanza. [4] Me Rubango Epimaque, uburanira Leta y‟u Rwanda, avuga ko ntaho amategeko yigeze ateganya ko Leta ihamagazwa mu isuzuma ry‟ibibazo bijyanye n‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko. Akomeza avuga ko ihamagazwa mu isuzuma ry‟ibibazo biri mu bubasha budasanzwe bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rikorwa gusa mu gihe hasuzumwa ibirego byerekeranye no kwemeza ko amategeko anyuranye n‟Itegeko Nshinga. Avuga ko n‟igihe isobanurampamo ryakorwaga n‟Inteko Ishinga Amategeko, Leta itasabwaga kugira ibitekerezo itanga. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8

Page 36

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [5] Nk‟uko Intumwa ya Leta ibivuga, ntahateganyijwe mu Itegeko Nshinga ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, no mu Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ko Leta ihamagazwa mu iburanisha ry‟imanza zirebana n‟isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko. Nyamara guhamagazwa kwa Leta mu manza zifite umwihariko birasanzwe, n‟ubwo byaba bidateganyijwe mu itegeko. Urugero ni mu manza zisaba kwemeza ko itegeko rinyuranyije n‟Itegeko Nshinga. Mbere y‟ivugurura ryo mu 2015 ry‟Itegeko Nshinga, ntaho byari biteganyijwe ko Leta itumizwa muri bene izo manza. Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwafashe umwanzuro wo kujya rutumiza Leta kubera uruhare igira mu gutegura no gushyira mu bikorwa amategeko no kuba yumva neza icyo ayo mategeko aba yarashyiriweho.1 [6] Hakurikijwe uruhare rwa Leta ruvugwa haruguru, Urukiko rusanga ari ngombwa ko mu gihe hari uwasabye ko hatangwa isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko, Leta ihamagazwa kugira ngo igire icyo ivuga kuri ubwo busabe, kuko ari nayo iri mu mwanya mwiza wo kumenya icyari kigamijwe itegeko rijyaho. Kuyitumiza, ntibigomba gufatwa nko kuyigira umuburanyi ku rwego rw‟urega, uwagobotse, uwagobokeshejwe, cyangwa rw‟uregwa, ahubwo ni mu rwego rwo gutanga ibitekerezo byafasha Urukiko mu gutanga isobanurampamo ry‟ itegeko. Urubanza ku isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko, ni urubanza rwihariye, iryo sobanurampamo rikaba riri mu nyungu rusange, n‟ibitekerezo by‟Intumwa ya Leta bikaba byaba ingirakamaro.

1 Reba nk‟urubanza RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS rurebana no gusobanura ingingo y‟Itegeko Nshinga rwaciwe n‟uru Rukiko ku wa 8/10/2015. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 9

Page 37

[7] Urukiko rurasanga atari ibirebana gusa n‟ihamagazwa rya Leta mu manza z‟isobanurampamo ridateganyijwe mu mategeko, n‟inzira yo kuburanisha izo manza ntaho iteganyijwe. Igihe nta tegeko rirateganya uko izo manza ziburanishwa, Urukiko rurasanga, kubera akamaro n‟uburemere bw‟ibirego byerekeranye n‟isobanurampamo, hagomba kwifashishwa ibiteganywa n‟Itegeko Ngenga N°03/2012/OL ryo kuwa 13/06/2002 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, mu ngingo zaryo zirebana n‟imiburanishirize y‟ibirego byerekeranye no kwemeza ko amasezerano mpuzamahanga cyangwa itegeko binyuranyije n‟Itegeko Nshinga. [8] Icyo bene izi manza zose zihuriyeho, n‟uko zireba inyungu rusange kandi zikaba zicibwa ku rwego rwa mbere n‟urwa nyuma mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga. Kimwe n‟imanza zisuzuma ibijyanye no gukuraho itegeko cyangwa ingingo y‟itegeko kuko binyuranyije n‟Itegeko Nshinga, iyo hakozwe isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko, icyemezo gifashwe ntikireba gusa uwasabye ko itegeko risobanurwa. Icyo cyemezo kireba buri wese harimo n‟abataratanze ikirego, kandi cyanashingirwaho mu bihe bizaza bitabaye ngombwa kongera gusaba Urukiko gukora isobanurampamo ry‟itegeko ryamaze kurikorerwa. Iki gitekerezo gihura n‟ibyavuzwe na Reginald Parker muri aya magambo: “[…..] The court, in deciding a question of law which lends itself to several constructions, interprets the law with binding force, not only for the parties involved in the litigation that gave rise to the decision, but also for the future”2 .

2 Reginald Parker, Administrative Interpretations, University of Miami Law School, 5U. Miami L. Rev.533 (1951) at http://repository.law.miami.edu/umir ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10

Page 38

Isobanurampamo risobanura ikibazo burundu rigatanga umurongo ngenderwaho. Kumenya uruhare rw’Urugaga rw’Abavoka mu Rwanda mu itangwa ry’ibirego bisaba isobanurampamo ruba rwanyujijweho.  [9] Mu gusobanura ingingo isabirwa isobanurampamo, Me Basomingera, uhagarariye Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda, asobanura ko ingingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko Nshinga ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, itera urujujo ku buryo ishobora gufatwa mu buryo bubiri. Asobanura ko ku ruhande rumwe iyo ngingo ishobora kumvikana nk‟aho Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda ari inzira yo kunyuzamo ikirego gisaba isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko nta kindi cyitaweho. Icyo gihe byaba bivuze ko Urugaga rudashobora kwanga gushyikiriza Urukiko ubusabe bw‟umuntu urusabye kumugereza ku rukiko ubusabe bwe. Muri icyo gihe Urugaga nta bubasha rwaba rufite bwo kugira uruhare mu isuzumwa ry‟ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo rikorwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. [10] Ku rundi ruhande, avuga ko iyo ngingo ishobora kumvikanisha ko Urugaga rugomba kugira uruhare mu busabe rwanyujijweho hagatangwa gusa ubusabe ku ngingo zaba zirimo ikibazo cy‟imyumvire, byaba na ngombwa rukagira inama abarunyujijeho ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo mu gihe rusanga ridakenewe bitewe nuko itegeko iryo saba rishingiyeho ryaba risobanutse bihagije. [11] Me Basongera yatanze urugero rw‟ubusabe Urugaga rwagejejweho na Banki y‟Abaturage y‟u Rwanda (BPR Ltd), aho rwakoze incamake y‟ikibazo rwari rwagejejweho ndetse rugaragaza n‟uburyo ikibazo kigomba gusuzumwa. Asoza asaba ko Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwabanza rugasobanura ku buryo Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 11

Page 39

butaziguye (direct) uruhare rw‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda muri iyo nzira y‟isobanurampamo. [12] Me Bagabo Faustin, nawe uhagarariye Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda, avuga ko Urugaga rwahamagajwe kuburana kandi umuntu aburana ibyo yemera ashobora gusobanura, ikibazo kikaba kumenya igihe umuntu ahaye Urugaga ikibazo kandi rwo rwumva ingingo isobanutse, niba rufite ububasha bwo kubyanga, naho rwashingira rubyanga. Yakomeje yibaza niba umuturage ushyikirije ubusabe bwe Urugaga rukabyanga, rukavuga ko rusanze bisobanutse nta mpamvu yo kubishyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, azaba afite inzira y‟ubujurire. [13] Avuga ko mu bibazo byashyikirijwe Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda, abantu benshi bagaruka ku manza baburanye kandi mu myumvire y‟Urugaga ntabwo isobanurampamo ryagombye gusabwa ari uko habaye urubanza kuko isobanurampamo atari inzira y‟ubujurire ahubwo ari ikibazo kireba abantu muri rusange. [14] Asoza avuga ko mu gihe Urukiko rwemeje ko Urugaga rufite ububasha bwo kubanza gusuzuma ibibazo rwagejejweho, rugafata icyemezo cyo kwanga cyangwa kwemera ubusabe, icyo cyemezo rufashe kitajuririrwa kuko kiramutse kijuririwe byaba bibaye urubanza ndetse n‟inzira y‟uko bene ibyo birego bica mu Rugaga rw„Abavoka yaba iteshejwe agaciro. [15] Me Rubango avuga ko abagize Urugaga bafite imyumvire itandukanye ku ngingo isabirwa isobanurampamo, bamwe bavuga ko Urugaga rudafite ububasha bwo kwanga ikibazo rwagejejweho n‟umuturage naho abandi bavuga ko impamvu Umushingamategeko yateganyije ko bene ibyo bibazo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 12

Page 40

bigomba kubanza kunyuzwa ku Rugaga, ari uko yasanze nk‟urwego rurimo abanyamwuga rugomba, kubanza kureba niba ikibazo rwanyujijweho ari ngombwa ko gishyikirizwa Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, rukabyanga cyangwa se rukaba rwagira ibyo rukosora. [16] Akomeza avuga ko icyifuzo cya Leta y‟u Rwanda aruko mu isobanurampamo ry‟ingingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwakwemeza ko Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rufite ububasha bwo kwemera, kwanga cyangwa kugorora ubusabe rwagejejweho, rukajya ruhamagarwa rugatanga ibisobanuro. Ku rundi ruhande, mu gihe Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga ruramutse rwemeje ko Urugaga rutagomba guhindura cyangwa kwanga ubusabe, byaba bitumvikana ukuntu rwahamagarwa gusobanura ibyo rushobora kuba rutemera. Yavuze kandi ko mu busesenguzi bakoze, basanze nyuma yaho ubusabe ku isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko riherewe Urukiko rw„Ikirenga, ibibazo bizaba byinshi kuko abantu bashobora no kubyifashisha batinza imanza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ibyerekeye isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko bikubiye mu ngingo ya 96 y‟Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. Iyi ngingo iteganya ko: “Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko rikorwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. Iryo sobanurampamo rishobora gusabwa na Guverinoma cyangwa Urugaga rw‟Abavoka. Umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu ashobora gusaba isobanurampamo abinyujije ku Rugaga rw‟Abavoka. Iyo itegeko ritumvikanye kimwe mu Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 13

Page 41

ndimi ryatangajwemo mu Igazeti ya Leta, hitabwa ku rurimi iryo tegeko ryatowemo”. [18] Urugaga ruvuga ko ingingo ivugwa mu gika kibanziriza iki, itera urujijo rwo kumenya uruhare rwarwo mu busabe bw„isobanurampamo ruba rwanyujijweho n‟undi muntu wese ufitemo inyungu. Nk‟uko bigaragara mu ngingo ya 96 y‟Itegeko Nshinga yavuzwe, umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu afite ububasha bwo gusaba isobanurampamo, ariko akabinyuza ku Rugaga rw‟Abavoka. Ntabwo umuntu ku giti cye yemerewe kugeza ubusabe bwe ku Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga. Icyo Urugaga rushaka gusobanukirwa, ni ukumenya uruhare rwarwo mu gihe hari usaba isobanurampamo abinyujije ku Rugaga rw‟Abavoka. Uruhare rw‟Urugaga mu busabe bugezwa ku Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga rugomba kureberwa mu nshingano z‟abarugize nk‟uko ziteganywa n‟Itegeko rishyiraho Urugaga ndetse zikanashimangirwa n‟andi mahame agenga umwuga w‟Abavoka, hakanasuzumwa icyari kigamijwe mu guha Urugaga rw‟Abavoka inshingano yo kwakira ubusabe bw‟abaturage no kubushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. [19] Ingingo ya 2,1° y‟Itegeko Nº 83/2013 ryo kuwa 11/09/2013 rishyiraho Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda, rikanagena imitunganyirize n‟imikorere byarwo isobanura ko Umwavoka ari umunyamwuga w‟amategeko ufasha ubutabera, ushinzwe guhagararira, kunganira no kuburanira abantu mu nzego z‟ubutegetsi, iz‟ubucamanza n‟izindi zose zifata ibyemezo. Ashobora gutegura umwanzuro no gufata ijambo imbere y‟izo nzego. Ashobora kandi kugishwa inama, kunga no gukora inyandiko zose abaje bamugana bakeneye mu rwego rw‟amategeko [……]. Ibi bihuje n‟ibyavuzwe n‟akanama k‟Umuryango w‟Abibumbye gashinzwe ikumirwa ry‟ibyaha no ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14

Page 42

gushyiraho uburyo abakoze ibyaha bafatwa. Mu nama yako ya 8 yabereye Havana, Cuba, kashyizeho Amahame y‟ibanze agenga Abavoka (Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers). By‟umwihariko, mu gace ka 13 k‟ayo mahame, hemejwe ko Abavoka bafite inshingano yo kugira inama ababagana ku burenganzira n‟inshingano bafite, no gusobanurirwa inzira banyuramo zirebana n‟ubwo burenganzira n‟inshingano bafite.3 [20] Urugaga runyuzwaho ubusabe n‟umuntu wese ubifitemo inyungu bitewe nuko ari urwego rugizwe n‟abanyamwuga b‟amategeko. Uruhare rw‟Urugaga kuri ubwo busabe, rugomba kujyana n‟ubwo bunyamwuga mu mategeko bw‟abarugize hagamijwe gufasha ubutabera n‟abagana Urugaga. Ntabwo rero, Urugaga rwafatwa nk‟urwego rugomba kunyuzwaho ubusabe gusa nkaho ari ikigo gishinzwe kwakira no kugeza ubutumwa aho bugomba kujya (iposita), ngo hirengagizwe iyo nshingano yarwo y‟ibanze yo gufasha ubutabera. [21] Rukurikije ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, Urukiko rurasanga ntacyo byaba bimaze ubusabe buramutse bunyujijwe ku Rugaga, uru ntirubashe kugira icyo rubukoraho. Ibyo byaba bisa nko kureka buri wese ubishaka agasaba isobanurampamo mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga. Bigenze gutyo, byaba binyuranyije n‟icyari kigamijwe hagenwa ko ubusabe bunyuzwa ku Rugaga, ndetse byaba bihaye icyuho abashobora gusaba isobanurampamo ritari ngombwa hagamijwe

3 The duties of lawyers towards their clients shall include: Advising their clients as to their legal rights and obligations and as to the working of the legal system in so far as it is relevant to the legal rights and obligations of the clients”. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, Cuba 27 /8/- 7/9/1990. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 15

Page 43

gutinza imanza cyangwa bikaba uburyo buziguye bwo kujurira, cyangwa rigasabwa mu buryo butari ubwa kinyamwuga ku buryo byagorana mu isesengura ry‟ikibazo. [22] Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rurasanga mu gihe hari uwanyujije ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ry‟Itegeko ku Rugaga rw‟Abavoka, rugomba gusuzuma niba iryo sobanurampamo rikenewe koko, rukayungurura, rwasanga ibyo rwagejejweho bisobanutse ku buryo bidakeneye gusobanurwa, rukabimenyesha uwatanze ubusabe, rukaba rwanamugira inama. Mu gihe Urugaga rufashe icyemezo cyo kwanga ubusabe, icyo cyemezo ntikijuririrwa. Nk‟Urwego rugizwe n‟abanyamwuga mu mategeko, Urugaga rusanze ubusabe bufite ishingiro, bibaye ngombwa rumaze gukora ubugororangingo, rwageza ubwo busabe ku Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga kugirango ruzasuzume ikibazo kigaragara kandi cyumvikana. Uruhare rw‟Urugaga kandi ntirugomba kugarukira aho, rugomba gukomeza kugeza Urukiko ruburanishije icyo kirego rukaza gutanga igitekerezo cyarwo. [23] Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rurasanga hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe mu bika bibanziriza iki, Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rufite ububasha bwo gusuzuma ubusabe rwashyikirijwe, rugafata icyemezo ko isobanurampamo rikenewe cyangwa ridakenewe, ryaba rikenewe ubwo busabe rukabushyikiriza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga. Ibikwiye gushingirwaho hasuzumwa ubusabe bw’isobanurampamo. [24] Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko no gusobanura amategeko mu buryo busanzwe biratandukanye. Isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko rikorwa mu buryo bwihariye, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16

Page 44

rigakorwa n‟ababifitiye ububasha bahabwa n‟amategeko, hakagaragazwa ibisobanuro by‟itegeko ritumvikana neza. Ibi ni byo John M. Huels yavuze muri aya magambo: “[….] there is a special form of interpretation that officially and authoritatively resolves the meaning of a doubtful law. This is called “authentic interpretation and may only be made by the legislator or one to whom he has entrusted the power to interpret the law authentically […]4”. Naho John F. McCarthy, avuga ko isobanurampamo ry‟amategeko, ari ugusobanura amategeko bikozwe mu nzira zagenwe kandi bigakorwa n‟ubifitiye ububasha. Abivuga muri aya magambo: “[….] an authentic interpretation is an interpretation that is imposed in an obligatory manner, or authoritatively, by a public person possessing this power5”. Ibi ntibyagereranywa n‟isobanura ry‟amategeko mu buryo busanzwe kuko byo bishobora gukorwa n‟umucamanza uhuye n‟ikibazo mu rubanza hatagombye gutangwa ikirego kihariye. [25] Kubera imiterere y‟isobanurampamo nkuko byasobanuwe mu bika bibiri bibanziriza iki, Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rurasanga ari ngombwa ko rutanga imirongo migari (guidelines) izafasha ushaka gutanga ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo ndetse ikiyambazwa n‟Urugaga cyangwa Urukiko mu gusuzuma ubwo busabe. Iyo mirongo n‟iyi ikurikira:

4 John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012), accessed on http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/juristcu72&di v=29&id=&page 5 John F. McCarthy, The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 17

Page 45

Uwatanze ikirego cy‟isobanurampamo agomba kubanza kugaragaza inyungu isobanurampamo rimufitiye ku giti cye, kubo ahagarariye badashobora kwitangira ikirego cyangwa ko abikoze mu nyungu rusange. Agomba kugaragaza ko hari imanza cyangwa ibyemezo by‟ubutegetsi kandi bireba inyungu rusange, bivuguruzanya ku bisobanuro by‟ingingo y‟Itegeko. Ikirego gishobora kwakirwa na none iyo ugitanze agaragaza ko hari amagambo ari mu Itegeko atera urujijo ku buryo yahabwa ibisobanuro bitandukanye bivuguruzanya kandi bikaba biri mu nyungu rusange ko ayo magambo asobanuka. Icyakora, ikirego ntigishobora kwakirwa iyo kiri mu rubanza rutararangiza kuburanishwa cyangwa rutararangiza inzira zisanzwe z‟ijurira. [26] By‟umwihariko, mu gutanga isobanurampamo y‟amategeko bitewe n‟icyasabwe gusobanurwa, Urukiko rugomba kugaragaza: a) niba ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry‟itegeko rishobora gutuma ryumvikana mu buryo butandukanye, b) niba hajya habaho gutandukira mu gusobanura itegeko no kurikoresha ku buryo bidahura n‟icyatumye rijyaho cyangwa ntirishobore gukemura ikibazo ryari rigamije gukemura. Urukiko kandi rugomba a) gutanga ibisobanuro by‟itegeko cyangwa ingingo zaryo mu gihe imyandikire yaryo itera urujijo, b) kwagura ibisobanuro by‟itegeko mu gihe hagaragara ko hari ibyo ritavuze hakagaragara icyuho mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryaryo.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18

Page 46

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [27] Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwemeye kwakira ikirego rwashyikirijwe n‟Urugaga rw‟Abavoka. [28] Rwemeje ko hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 96, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015, Urugaga rw‟Abavoka mu Rwanda rufite ububasha bwo kwemera, kwanga cyangwa gukora ubugororangingo ku busabe rwagejejweho. Rukaba rugomba no guhamagazwa mu Rukiko kugirango rugire ibisobanuro rutanga. [29] Rwemeje ko Leta y‟u Rwanda ihamagazwa mu manza zijyanye n‟isobanurampamo. [30] Rwemeje ko mu gusuzuma iyakirwa ry‟ubusabe bw‟isobanurampamo hazajya hakurikizwa imirongo ivugwa mu bika bya 25 na 26 by‟uru rubanza.

Re URUGAGA RW’ABAVOKA MU RWANDA 19

Page 48

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

Page 50

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI(1) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RCAA0009/14/CS (Mugenzi, J., Gatete na Karimunda, J.) 3 Gashyantare 2017] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y‟imanza mbonezamubano – Urupfu rw‟umwe mu bashakanye baburana mu rubanza – Ufite inshingano zo gukomeza urubanza igihe abashakanye bafite inyungu zibangamiranye mu rubanza rumwe rurimo n‟undi muburanyi – Kugira ngo umuburanyi atange ikirego agomba kugaragaza inyungu kandi igomba kugumaho kugeza urubanza rurangiye – Iyo umwe mu bashakanye apfuye, usigaye yegukana umutungo wose ku bw‟itegeko bigatuma urubanza ruwushingiyeho hagati yabo rurangira – Uburenganzira bwo kwegukana umutungo bujyana n‟inshingano ziwukomokaho bityo uwegukanye akaba ariwe ukomeza urubanza hagati ye n‟umuburanyi usigaye kabone n‟ubwo yaba yaramuregeye mu kirego kimwe n‟uwo bashakanye wapfuye – Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2 n‟iya 129 – Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 76, iya 8(2) n‟iya 52(3). Incamake y’ikibazo: Gahongayire, umugore wa Mirimo, yaregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko amasezerano y‟ubugure bw‟inzu Milimo yagiranye na Habiyakare ateshwa agaciro kuko inzu yagurishijwe atabitangiye uburenganzira. 23

Page 51

Uru Rukiko rwemeje ko ayo masezerano asheshwe, inzu yaguzwe igasubira mu mutungo wa Gahongayire na Mirimo kandi igacungwa na Mirimo wanategetswe gusubiza Habiyakare 80.000.000Frw y‟ikiguzi cy‟inzu. Mirimo na Habiyakare bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko Gahongayire yari azi ikorwa ry‟ariya masezerano kandi ko inzu yagurishijwe mu nyungu z‟umuryango, bityo basaba Urukiko ko yagumaho cyangwa bitakorwa bityo, umuryango wa Mirimo na Gahongayire ugafatanya kwishyura Habiyakare agaciro iyo nzu igezeho mu gihe cy‟urubanza. Urukiko rwajuririwe rwemeje ko urubanza rudahindutse kandi rutegeka ko Habiyakare yishyurwa 80.000.000Frw y‟ikiguzi cy‟inzu cyumvikanyweho mu masezerano ndetse ko Gahongayire ataryozwa amasezerano atagizemo uruhare. Habiyakare yajuririye Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, arega Mirimo na Gahongayire avuga ko umutungo wagurishijwe mu nyungu z‟umuryango mu rwego rwo kwishyura ideni Mirimo yari afitiye BCR ndetse ko ku cyangombwa cy‟ubutaka hari handitseho Mirimo wenyine, ikindi kandi akavuga ko Urukiko ruramutse rubibonye ukundi, yagenerwa agaciro k‟iyo nzu kagaragazwa n‟inyandiko y‟umuhanga(expertise). Hagati aho Habiyakare yanatanze ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi avuga ko igihe bagura inzu ivugwa mu masezerano, banaguze Fonds de commerce, icyakora uru Rukiko rwikuraho uru rubanza ngo ruburanishwe n‟urukiko rw‟Ikirenga hamwe n‟ubujurire bwe. Mu gihe urubanza rwari rutaracibwa, Mirimo yitabye Imana, havuka ikibazo cyo kumenya ugomba gukomeza urubanza nyuma y‟urupfu rwe. Kuri iki kibazo Habiyakare avuga ko yumva kuba Gahongayire yeregukanye umutungo wose, akaba ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 24

Page 52

ariyo mpamvu ari nawe ugomba guhagararira abazungura ba Mirimo, cyane ko icyo yasabaga ari uko umutungo ugaruka mu mutungo w‟umuryango naho abahagarariye Gahongayire bo bakavuga ko bigoranye kuba Gahongayire yahagararira Mirimo kuko inyungu za bombi muri uru rubanza zitandukanye kandi ko izungura ritari ryatangira kuko amategeko ateganya ko umwe mu bashakanye usigaye yegukana umutungo, izungura rikazaba ari uko nawe apfuye cyangwa yongeye gushaka, urubanza rero rukaba rukwiye gukomeza ku baburanyi bahari, Mirimo atarurimo. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kugira ngo umuburanyi atange ikirego agomba kugaragaza inyungu, bikumvikana ko iyo nyungu igomba no kugumaho kugeza urubanza rurangiye, yaba itakiriho, n‟urubanza rukarangirira aho, bityo kuba Gahongayire atagifite inyungu zo gukurikirana ikirego yari yarareze Mirimo ku bibazo bijyanye n‟imitungo, kuko yegukanye imitungo yose ya Mirimo ku bw‟Itegeko, nyuma y‟uko uyu apfuye, byatumye urubanza hagati yabo rurangira.

2. Uburenganzira bwo kwegukana umutungo bujyana n‟inshingano ziwukomokaho, ku rundi ruhande, urubanza rukaba rero rugomba gukomeza hagati ya Habiyakare na Gahongayire nk‟uko baburanaga inyungu zibangamiranye na mbere y‟urupfu rwa Mirimo. Iburanisha ry’urubanza rizakomeza hagati y’ababuranyi basigaye. Amagarama y’urubanza arasubitswe.

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (1) 25

Page 53

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, ingingo ya 76, iya 8(2) n‟iya 52(3). Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 2 n‟iya 129. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ku wa 26/6/2008 Mirimo Gaspard yagiranye amasezerano y‟ubugure bw‟inzu na Habiyakare Robert, iri mu kibanza No4593/Kicukiro, kuri 80.000.000Frw yanyujijwe kuri konti ya Mirimo muri BCR (I&MBank) kugira ngo hishyurwe umwenda yari ayibereyemo. Gahongayire, umugore wa Mirimo, yaregeye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge asaba ko ayo masezerano ateshwa agaciro kuko inzu yagurishijwe atabizi. [2] Mu rubanza RC0249/12/TGI/NYGE, Urukiko rwemeje ko amasezerano yavuzwe asheshwe, inzu yaguzwe igasubira mu mutungo wa Gahongayire na Mirimo kandi igacungwa na Mirimo, uyu agasubiza Habiyakare 80.000.000Frw y‟ikiguzi cy‟inzu. [3] Mirimo na Habiyakare buri wese yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko Gahongayire Winnifrida yari azi ikorwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 26

Page 54

ry‟ariya masezerano, bityo ko atasaba ko ateshwa agaciro, basaba Urukiko ko ahubwo yagumaho kuko inzu yagurishijwe mu nyungu z‟umuryango, bitakorwa bityo, umuryango wa Mirimo na Gahongayire ugafatanya kwishyura Habiyakare agaciro k‟inzu k‟uyu munsi, kagaragajwe n‟abahanga ka 347.782.150Frw. [4] Mu guca urubanza RCA0566/012/HC na RCA0581/012/HC, Urukiko rwemeje ko urubanza rudahindutse ahubwo ko Habiyakare agomba kwishyurwa 80.000.000Frw kuko ariyo yumvikanyweho mu masezerano (ingingo ya 263 CCL.III), kandi ko Gahongayire ataryozwa amasezerano atagizemo uruhare. [5] Urukiko Rukuru rwasobanuye ko nta hagaragara ko Gahongayire yamenye amasezerano avugwa kandi akaba nta kigaragaza ko iyo nzu yagurishijwe mu nyungu z‟umuryango, ko ahubwo byakozwe na Mirimo mu rwego rwo kurigisa umutungo w‟umuryango nk‟uko biboneka mu manza zaburanywe na Gahongayire, asaba ko iriya nzu ivanwa mu mitungo yatanzweho ingwate ku mwenda atazi. Urukiko rwasobanuye kandi ko Habiyakare akwiye kwishyurwa 80.000.000Frw y‟ikiguzi kigaragara mu masezerano, kandi Gahongayire akaba atayaryozwa kuko atayagizemo uruhare. [6] Habiyakare yajuririye Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, arega Mirimo na Gahongayire, ariko atanga n‟ikirego mu Rukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge (RCOM0852/14/TC/NYGE) avuga ko mu kugura inzu ivugwa mu masezerano kuri 80.000.000Frw banaguze “Fonds de commerce” kuri 36.000.000Frw, ariko Urukiko rw‟Ubucuruzi rurwohereza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ngo ruburanishirizwe hamwe na RCAA0009/14/CS. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (1) 27

Page 55

[7] Ku mpamvu z‟ubujurire, Habiyakare yavugaga ko umucamanza yagombaga kwemeza ko uriya mutungo wagurishijwe mu nyungu z‟umuryango kuko hishyuwe ideni Mirimo yari afitiye BCR, ryari ryafashwe mu bikorwa by‟umuryango, akaba kandi yaraguze inzu azi ko ari iy‟umuryango kuko ku cyangombwa cy‟umutungo hari handitseho Mirimo wenyine. Avuga ko Urukiko rubibonye ukundi, yagenerwa 347.782.150Frw, agaciro kagaragazwa na “expertise”, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 310 CCL.III, asaba indishyi zingana na 3.000.000Frw harimo 2.000.000Frw yo gusiragizwa mu rubanza na 1.000.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka. [8] Ku nzitizi yatanzwe n‟uhagarariye Gahongayire yo kutakira ikirego kuko ababuranyi batsinzwe ku mpamvu zimwe mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye no mu Rukiko Rukuru, Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwafashe icyemezo ku wa 19/02/2016, ko iyo nzitizi nta ishingiro ifite, rwemeza ko iburanisha ry‟urubanza rizakomeza, rwongera kuburanishwa ku wa 22/11/2016 no ku wa 14/12/2016, hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya ugomba gukomeza urubanza, nyuma y‟urupfu rwa Mirimo wari ururimo nk‟umuburanyi. Habiyakare yari ahagarariwe na Me Munyangabe Henry Pierre, Gahongayire ahagarariwe na Me Rutabingwa Athanase na Me Niyomugabo Christophe. II. IKIBAZO KIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya uko urubanza rugomba gukomeza, nyuma y’urupfu rwa Mirimo Gaspard wari umuburanyi muri rwo. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 28

Page 56

[9] Me Munyangabe Henry Pierre uhagarariye Habiyakare avuga ko nyuma y‟urupfu rwa Mirimo, Gahongayire yegukanye umutungo wose, akaba ariyo mpamvu ari nawe ugomba guhagararira abazungura ba Mirimo, cyane ko icyo yasabaga ari uko umutungo ugaruka mu mutungo w‟umuryango. Basaba ko hakoreshwa imwe mu nzira ebyiri zishoboka mu gukemura ikibazo, iyo kwemeza ko amasezerano aburanwa yagumana agaciro kayo, iya kabiri ikaba iyo kuba umutungo uburanwa wagarurwa mu muryango wa Mirimo uhagararariwe na Gahongayire, uyu akarangiza inshingano Mirimo yari afite zo gusubiza Habiyakare agaciro k‟umutungo uburanwa. [10] Me Rutabingwa Athanase na Me Niyomugabo bahagarariye Gahongayire, bavuga ko bigoranye kuba Gahongayire yahagararira Mirimo kuko inyungu za bombi muri uru rubanza zitandukanye. Bavuga ko izungura ritari ryatangira kuko amategeko ateganya ko umwe mu bashakanye usigaye yegukana umutungo, izungura rikazaba ari uko nawe apfuye cyangwa yongeye gushaka, urubanza rero rukaba rukwiye gukomeza ku baburanyi bahari, Mirimo atarimo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ingingo ya 8, igika cya 2, y‟Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura, iteganya ko iyo uburyo bw‟ivangamutungo rusange bw‟abasezeranye HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (1) 29

Page 57

busheshwe kubera urupfu rw‟umwe muri bo, “umutungo wegukanwa n‟uwapfakaye, kugeza igihe izungura rikorewe1”. [12] Ku byerekeye igihe iryo zungura rikorerwa, ingingo ya 52, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko rivuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko izungura ry‟abashyingiranywe ritangira ari uko bombi bapfuye cyangwa umwe yongeye gushyingirwa, usibye igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi. [13] Urukiko rurasanga rero, hashingiye ku biteganywa n‟izo ngingo zombi zuzuzanya, nyuma y‟urupfu rwa Mirimo, Gahongayire bari barashakanye, bafitanye amasezerano y‟ivangamutungo rusange, yaregukanye umutungo wose (patrimoine) wa Mirimo (actif et passif), kandi kuba Gahongayire, akiriho ataranongera gushaka, bikaba bibuza ko izungura ritangira, hakaba rero nta n‟abazungura ba Mirimo bahamagarwa mu rubanza ngo barukomeze mu mwanya we. [14] Urukiko rurasanga ariko, ingingo ya 129 y‟Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 16/04/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi, iteganya ko “iyo urubanza rutaragera igihe cyo gucibwa, Urukiko rukamenya urupfu rw‟umwe mu baburanaga, ruhamagara abafite ububasha bwo kurukomeza…” aba rero bakaba batakumvikana gusa nk‟abazungura byanze bikunze, ahubwo hanarebwa n‟undi waba ufite ubwo bubasha.

1 Ni nako biteganyijwe mu gika cya mbere, agace ka mbere, cy‟ingingo ya 76 y‟Itegeko No27/2016 ryo ku wa 08/07/2016, rigenga imicungire y‟umutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, impano n‟izungura.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30

Page 58

[15] Urukiko rurasanga, kubera ko nta zungura rya Mirimo ryabaho mu gihe Gahongayire bashakanye akiriho, ataranongeye gushaka, kandi ari nawe wegukanye umutungo wose wa Mirimo nk‟uko byibukijwe haruguru, byumvikana ko ariwe wakagombye kugira ububasha bwo gukomeza urubanza mu mwanya wa Mirimo utakiriho, ariko hakavuka ikibazo cyo kuba, inyungu Gahongayire yari akurikiranye mu rubanza zibangamiranye n‟iza Mirimo, kandi ari umwe mu bo baziburanaga. [16] Urukiko rurasanga, ubwo ibyo Gahongayire yari akurikiranyeho Mirimo byashoboraga kuva mu mutungo wa Mirimo, none uwo mutungo wose ukaba waregukanywe na Gahongayire, nta nyungu uyu agifite zo gukomeza urubanza ku byo yari akurikiranyeho Mirimo, kuko, nk‟uko ingingo ya 2 y‟Itegeko No21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟imbonezamubano, iz‟ubucuruzi, iz‟umurimo n‟iz‟ubutegetsi ibiteganya, kugira ngo umuburanyi atange ikirego agomba kugaragaza inyungu2, bikumvikana ko iyo nyungu igomba no kugumaho kugeza urubanza rurangiye, yaba itakiriho, n‟urubanza rukarangirira aho. [17] Urukiko rurasanga rero, kuba Gahongayire atagifite inyungu zo gukurikirana ikirego yari yarareze Mirimo ku bibazo bijyanye n‟imitungo, kuko yegukanye imitungo yose ya Mirimo ku bw‟Itegeko, nyuma y‟uko uyu apfuye, byatumye urubanza hagati yabo rurangira (extinction d‟instance). [18] Ku kibazo cy‟inyungu zibangamiranye mu rubanza hagati ya Habiyakare na Mirimo utakiriho, Urukiko rurasanga

2 Iyo ngingo iteganya ko ikirego kitemerwa mu rukiko, iyo urega adafite ububasha, inyungu n‟ubushobozi bwo kurega. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE N’UNDI (1) 31

Page 59

urubanza rugomba gukomeza hagati ya Habiyakare na Gahongayire wasimbuye Mirimo kubera ko yegukanye umutungo we nk‟uko byasobanuwe haruguru, kuko uburenganzira bwo kwegukana umutungo bujyana n‟inshingano ziwukomokaho, ku rundi ruhande, urubanza rukaba rugomba gukomeza hagati ya Habiyakare na Gahongayire nk‟uko baburanaga inyungu zibangamiranye, na mbere y‟urupfu rwa Mirimo. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [19] Rwemeje ko urubanza hagati ya Gahongayire Winnifrida na Mirimo Gaspard rwarangiye, kubera urupfu rwa Mirimo; [20] Rwemeje ko ibyo Habiyakare Robert yaburanaga na Mirimo Gaspard ku ruhande rumwe, na Gahongayire Winnifrida ku rundi ruhande, azakomeza kubiburana na Gahongayire muri uru rubanza; [21] Rutegetse ko urubanza mu mizi, ku bujurire bwa Habiyakare Robert n‟ubwa Gahongayire Winnifrida, ruzakomeza kuburanishwa ku wa 11/04/2017;

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32

Page 60

SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RCOMAA0020/16/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Kanyange na Ngagi J.) 21 Ukwakira 2016] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟ubucuruzi – Ikirego cy‟indishyi – Amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi – Ikoreshwa ry‟ihame “le criminel tient le civil en etat” – N‟ubwo iri hame ari ndemyagihugu, ntibihagije kugira ngo ryubahirizwe mu rubanza urwo arirwo rwose mu gihe ikiburanwa atari indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha, bityo iryo hame ntiryahagarika ikirego cy‟indishyi zikomoka ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi – Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 14 – Itegeko Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ubasha by‟inkiko, ngingo ya 160. Ubukemurampaka – Imbibi z‟amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka – Kuba mu masezerano y‟ubukemurampaka impande zombi zumvikanye ko abakemurampaka bazasuzuma ibikubiye mu myanzuro y‟urega n‟iy‟uregwa, kandi mu myanzuro y‟urega bikaba bigaragara ko yasabye n‟inyungu z‟ubukererwe, ntibyafatwa nko kurenga imbibi z‟ayo masezerano mu gihe abakemurampaka bafashe icyemezo kuri izo nyungu – Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 8 n‟iya 47. Incamake y’ikibazo: TROMEA Ltd yakoranye na SORAS Ltd amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi bw‟inkongi y‟umuriro n‟ubujura byumwihariko ubujura bukorewe mu bubiko bwayo. Nyuma 33

Page 61

yaho, TROMEA yaje kwibwa amabuye y‟agaciro yari mu bubiko bwayo, yandikira SORAS iyisaba kuyishyura ishingiye ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi bagiranye. Impande zombi ntizabashije kwumvikana maze TROMEA Ltd yiyambaza ubukemurampaka, bwemeza ko SORAS Ltd igomba kwishyurwa agaciro k‟ibyibwe, inyungu z‟ubukererwe hamwe n‟indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano. SORAS ntiyishimiye uwo mwanzuro ijurira mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, narwo rwemeza ko ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. SORAS Ltd yajuriye nanone mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwanze gusuzuma ubujurire bwayo ruvuga ko itigeze iburanisha ihame rivuga ko urubanza rw‟indishyi ruba ruhagaze kuburanishwa mu gihe cyose urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha rutaracibwa burundu “le criminel tient le civil en état” imbere y‟inteko y‟abakemurampaka, nyamara yarariburanishije. Ikomeza ivuga ko hashingiwe kuri iryo hame, inteko y‟abakemurampaka yagombaga guhagarika urubanza rw‟indishyi mu gihe urwinshinjabyaha rufitanye isano n‟uru rurimo kuburanishwa rutari rwarangira kuko ari ndemyagihugu. Iyindi mpamvu y‟ubujurire bwa SORAS nuko ivuga ko urukiko rwasesenguye nabi itegeko, rwemeza ko nta mpamvu n‟imwe yatanze isaba gukuraho icyemezo cyafashwe n‟abakemurampaka cyayisabaga kwishyura ibyibwe, igaragaza kandi ko ibyo TROMEA yishyuza binyuranyije n‟itegeko kuko bidateganyijwe mu masezerano y‟ubwishingizi bagiranye, bityo ko icyemezo kiyigenera inyungu n‟indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano kikaba cyararengereye imbibi z‟ibikubiye mu masezerano. TROMEA yo yiregura ivuga yuko ihame rya le criminel tient le civil en état ritakurikizwa kuko ntaho rihuriye n‟icyaregewe kuko ikirego cyatanzwe cyari kigamije gusaba indishyi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34

Page 62

zikomoka ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi aho kuba izishingiye ku cyaha. Ku bijyanye nuko urukiko rwasobanuye nabi ingingo ya 47 y‟Itegeko N0005/2008 ku byerekeranye n‟imbibi z‟amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka, TROMEA Ltd yisobanura ivuga ko indishyi yagenewe zitanyuranyije n‟amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi kuko iyo SORAS iza kwishyurira igihe, bitari kuyiteza igihombo. Yatanze kandi ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi isaba kwishyurwa n‟ibihwanye nibyo yahombye byose, amafaranga y‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka. SORAS nayo isubiza ivuga ko ubujurire bwa TROMEA ntacyo yabuvugaho kuko urubanza rutari mu mizi. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ku bijyanye n‟uko ihame rya " le criminel tient le civil en état " ryaburanishijwe ubwa mbere ku rwego rw‟ubujurire, siko biri nk‟uko bigaragara mu mwanzuro w‟ubukemurampaka.

2. Kuba ihame rya "le criminel tient le civil en état", ari ndemyagihugu, iyi kamere yonyine ntihagije kugira ngo ryubahirizwe mu rubanza urwo arirwo rwose, kuko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟amategeko, indishyi zisabwa zigomba kuba zikomoka ku cyaha, nyamara ikirego cyatanzwe mu bukemurampaka cyari kigamije gusaba indishyi zishingiye ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi. Bityo iri hame ntiryakoreshwa muri uru rubanza.

3. Kuba mu masezerano y‟ubukemurampaka impande zombi zumvikanye ko abakemurampaka bazasuzuma ibikubiye mu myanzuro y‟urega n‟iy‟uregwa, kandi nkuko bigaragara mu myanzuro ya TROMEA Ltd yasabye n‟inyungu z‟ubukererwe. Bityo abakemurampaka ntibarenze imbibi z‟amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 35

Page 63

Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 14. Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, ingingo za 8 na 47. Itegeko Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ubasha by‟inkiko, ingingo ya 160. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS et Adrien MASSET, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, 2006, Larcier, p.203. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku masezerano SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd (iza kwitwa muri uru rubanza SORAS AG Ltd) yagiranye na TROMEA Ltd kuwa 03/01/2014, arebana n‟ubwishingizi bw‟inkongi y‟umuriro n‟ubujura, by‟umwihariko, ubujura bukorewe mu bubiko (stock/vol). Kuwa 11/11/2014, TROMEA Ltd yaje kumenya ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36

Page 64

mu bubiko bwayo yibwe amabuye y‟agaciro ahwanye na toni 14 zifite agaciro ka 263.735USD, maze kuwa 21/11/2014, yandikira SORAS AG Ltd iyisaba kuyishyura agaciro k‟ibyibwe, ishingiye ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi bagiranye, ariko ubwo bwishyu ntibwashoboka kubera ko impande zombi zitumvikanye. [2] TROMEA Ltd ishingiye na none kuri ayo masezerano y‟ubwishingizi, yiyambaje Ubukemurampaka, bwemeza ko SORAS AG Ltd igomba kwishyura TROMEA Ltd 173.236.343 Frw y‟agaciro k‟ibyibwe, 12.992.726Frw y‟inyungu z‟ubukererwe na 5.000.000Frw y‟indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano. SORAS AG Ltd yajuririye icyo cyemezo mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, ruca urubanza kuwa 17/12/2015, rwemeza ko ubwo bujurire nta shingiro bufite. [3] SORAS AG Ltd yajuriye mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko rwatanze ibisobanuro bitaribyo ku ihame rya « le criminel tient le civil en état », ko aho guhuza iryo hame n‟ibyo SORAS AG Ltd isaba, rwavuze ko SORAS AG Ltd itigeze iriburanisha haba mbere y‟iburanisha cyangwa rigeze hagati. Ivuga ko Inteko y‟abakemurampaka yagombaga guhagarika urubanza rw‟indishyi maze igategereza ko urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha rurangira kuko ririya hame ari ndemyagihugu kandi ko umuburanyi ashobora gusaba ko rikurikizwa aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose. SORAS AG Ltd ivuga kandi ko Urukiko rwasesenguye nabi itegeko, aho rwemeje ko SORAS AG Ltd nta mpamvu n‟imwe yatanze isaba gukuraho icyemezo cy‟abakemurampaka mu ziteganywa n‟ingingo ya 47 y‟Itegeko ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, kandi yaragaragaje ko ibyo TROMEA Ltd yishyuza bidateganyijwe mu masezerano y‟ubwishingizi, bikaba SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 37

Page 65

binyuranyije n‟ingingo ya 20 n‟iya 22, agace ka 2° ka "conditions spéciales d‟assurance", bityo icyemezo kiyigenera inyungu n‟indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano kikaba cyararengereye imbibi z‟ibikubiye mu masezerano, iyi mpamvu ngo ikaba iri mu ziteganywa n‟ingingo ya 47 c) y‟itegeko ryavuzwe. [4] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 26/04/2016, SORAS AG Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Nkurunziza François Xavier, naho TROMEA Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Mugemanyi Védaste na Me Bakashyaka Gérardine. [5] Nyuma yo kumva imiburanire y‟impande zombi, Urukiko rwasanze ababuranyi batavuga rumwe ku byerekeranye n‟ikoreshwa ry‟ihame rya "le crimine tient le civil en état" mu rubanza rwerekeranye n‟amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi bw‟ubujura. Me Nkurunziza yavugaga na none ko hari urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha ruburanishwa n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Kagarama ariko akaba nta makuru atanga kuri urwo rubanza kugira ngo bimenyekane koko ko ruriho. [6] Kuwa 10/06/2016,Urukiko rwemeje ko iburanisha ry‟uru rubanza rizakomeza nyuma y‟uko ababuranyi b‟impande zombi barushyikirije ibisobanuro birambuye ku ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état” n‟imikoreshereze yaryo mu rubanza rwerekeranye n‟amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi, SORAS AG Ltd ikanatanga ibimenyetso byerekana urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha ivuga ko rufitanye isano n‟ikirego cyashikirijwe abakemurampaka ruburanishwa mu Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Kagarama, nomero yarwo, ibyaha birukurikiranywemo ndetse n‟ababuranyi barurimo. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38

Page 66

[7] Iburanisha ryafunguwe kuwa 06/09/2016, ababuranyi bombi bahagarariwe nka mbere, buri ruhande rugeza ku Rukiko ibyo rwasabwe ndetse SORAS AG Ltd itanga kopi y‟imikirize y‟urubanza RP0643/14/TB/KMA, rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Kagarama ku wa 29/07/2016, haburana Ubushinjacyaha na Habiyaremye Eric na bagenzi be bashinjwa kwiba amabuye y‟agaciro mu bubiko bwa TROMEA Ltd. II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO A. UBUJURIRE BWA SORAS AG Ltd 1. Kumenya niba SORAS AG Ltd itarigeze iburanisha ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état” mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi. [8] Me Nkurunziza François Xavier, uburanira SORAS AG Ltd avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwanze gusuzuma ubujurire bwayo ruvuga ko SORAS AG Ltd itigeze iburanisha ihame rya "le criminel tient le civil en état" imbere y‟inteko y‟abakemurampaka, haba batangira kuburanisha cyangwa iburanisha rigeze hagati, nyamara

SORAS AG Ltd yarariburanishije nkuko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa 9, uduka twa 32, 33, na 34 tw‟umwanzuro w‟ubukemurampaka. Avuga ko imbere y‟Urukiko nkemurampaka yari yerekanye mu nzitizi yatanze, ko ririya hame niritubahirizwa hashobora kuba ivuguruzanya hagati y‟icyemezo cy‟umucamanza kizava mu rubanza nshinjabyaha n‟ikizafatwa mu rubanza mbonezamubano rusaba indishyi, ko ariko inteko y‟abakemurampaka yavuze ko inzitizi SORAS AG Ltd yatanze nta shingiro ifite. Anenga Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi yajuririye ko aho gusuzuma ikibazo yarugejejeho, ahubwo SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 39

Page 67

rwafashe ibintu uko bitari maze bituma rwemeza ko ingingo y‟ubujurire ya SORAS AG Ltd nta shingiro ifite. [9] Ababuranira TROMEA Ltd, bavuga ko ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état”, SORAS AG Ltd yariburanishije imbere y‟abakemurampaka ariko ko babisuzumye bagasanga nta shingiro bifite.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ku byerekeranye no kumenya niba SORAS AG Ltd yarasabye inteko y‟abakemurampaka kuba bahagaritse urubanza ku kirego cy‟indishyi cyatanzwe na TROMEA Ltd kugira ngo habanze gufatwa umwanzuro mu rubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha ku cyaha cy‟ubujura bwakozwe mu bubiko bwa TROMEA Ltd rwaburanishwaga n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Kagarama, Urukiko rurasanga SORAS AG Ltd yarasabye inteko y‟abakemurampaka kubahiriza ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état”, kandi ko yasuzumye iyi nzitizi nkuko bigaragara mu mwanzuro w‟ubukemurampaka ku rupapuro rwa 8 kugeza ku rwa 10.

2. Kumenya niba kuba ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état” ritarubahirijwe muri uru rubanza n’inteko y’ubukemurampaka byatuma umwanzuro wabo uteshwa agaciro. [11] Me Nkurunziza François Xavier, uburanira SORAS AG Ltd, avuga ko ihame rya "le criminel tient le civil en état" ", ashingiraho ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd, risobanura ko iyo hari ikirego cy‟indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha, urubanza rw‟indishyi rwaregewe Urukiko mbonezamubano ruba ruhagaritse iburanisha, rukabanza gutegereza ko Urukiko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40

Page 68

mpanabyaha rufata icyemezo kugira ngo hatazaba ivuguruzanya mu byemezo by‟inkiko zombi. Asobanura ko iyo hari urubanza nshinjabyaha, urubanza rw‟indishyi rushingiye kuri icyo cyaha ruba ruhagaze igihe cyose icyaha kitaremezwa kuko nyuma biramutse bigaragaye ko nta cyaha cyabayeho kandi indishyi zigishingiyeho zaratanzwe, byaba ari ikibazo gikomeye cyatuma ababuranyi basiragira mu zindi manza zakurikiraho. Ko rero mu rwego rwo kwirinda bene izo ngaruka ari ngombwa ko igihe urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha rutaracibwa, urw‟indishyi ruba ruhagaze rugategereza icyemezo kizafatwa n‟Urukiko mpanabyaha. [12] Me Nkurunziza, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd bushingiye ku ngingo ya 47, 2º, b, y‟Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, nta shingiro bufite, nyamara yararweretse ko umwanzuro w‟Inteko y‟ubukemurampaka wirengagije kubahiriza ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état” kandi ari ndemyagihugu, ko iyo riza kubahirizwa, urubanza rw‟indishyi rwari mu bukemurampaka rwari guhagarara rugategereza umwanzuro mu rubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha ku bijyanye n‟ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ubujura bwarabayeho, ababugizemo uruhare n‟ingano y‟ibyibwe . [13] Akomeza avuga ko kuba iri hame ari ndemyagihugu, umuburanyi ashobora kurigenderaho, aho urubanza rwaba rugeze hose ndetse ko yariburanisha ubwa mbere no mu bujurire. Avuga ko kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rutarigeze rusuzuma ingingo y‟ubujurire yari yarushyikirije, ari ikibazo gikomeye kuko kutubahiriza ririya hame bifite ingaruka mu ishyirwa mu bikorwa ry‟amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 41

Page 69

SORAS AG Ltd yagiranye na TROMEA Ltd bitewe nuko hateganywamo “clause d‟exclusion" ivuga ko SORAS AG Ltd itazaryozwa ibyibwe mu gihe uwishingiwe afitanye isano n‟uwibye. [14] Avuga ko ibyo abahagarariye

TROMEA Ltd baburanisha ko mu gihugu cy‟Ubufaransa hashyizweho amategeko ashyiraho imbibi mu gukurikiza ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état”, bitagenderwaho kuko ibyo bireba Ubufaransa kandi ko bidakuraho ihame nyirizina, ko rero hagomba gukurikizwa amategeko y‟u Rwanda kuko ahari, akaba akomeje gushimangira ko abakemurampaka bagombaga gutegereza ko urubanza nshinjabyaha rwari mu Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Kagarama rufata icyemezo ku byaha rwaregewe kubera ko imanza zombi zifitanye isano. [15] Ababuranira TROMEA Ltd, bavuga ko ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état”, SORAS AG Ltd iburanisha, ritahabwa agaciro kuko ntaho rihuriye n‟icyaregewe muri uru rubanza, ko ikirego cyatanzwe mu bukemurampaka kigamije gusaba ko

SORAS AG Ltd yubahiriza amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi yagiranye na TROMEA Ltd (article 18 des conditions spéciales d‟assurance), ko ikiburanwa atari indishyi zishingiye ku cyaha (action en réparation d‟une infraction), kandi ko n‟ababuranyi mu manza zombi atari bamwe. Bavuga ko TROMEA Ltd nta kirego cy‟indishyi yatanze muri urwo rubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha, cyangwa se ngo habe hari urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha ifitanye na SORAS AG Ltd, ndetse ko nta n‟abakozi bayo bakurikiranwa muri urwo rubanza, bityo akaba nta mpamvu n‟imwe yari gutuma SORAS AG Ltd itishyura. [16] Basobanura ko amasezerano TROMEA Ltd yagiranye na SORAS AG Ltd ateganya icyo buri ruhande rusabwa gukora ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42

Page 70

haramutse habaye “sinistre”, ko TROMEA Ltd yakoze ibyo isabwa, SORAS AG Ltd ikaba igomba nayo gukora ibyo isabwa itaruhanyije, isaba gutegereza urubanza itazi igihe ruzarangirira, kandi ko niba amafaranga isabwa itayemera, yasaba ko hakorwa “contre expertise”. Bavuga ko ibyo SORAS ivuga ko abakoze icyaha batazwi atari byo kuko iki kibazo Abakemurampaka bagisuzumye bagasanga abibye barakoreraga TOPSEC, atari abakozi ba TROMEA Ltd, ko rero kuva nta masezerano y‟akazi abibye bagiranye na

TROMEA Ltd (nta n‟imisanzu n‟ubwiteganyirize ibatangira muri RSSB ndetse ko nta n‟imisoro ibatangira mu Kigo cy‟igihugu gishinzwe kwinjiza imisoro n‟amahoro), nta mpamvu abakemurampaka bari guhagarika iburanisha ry‟ikirego cya TROMEA Ltd kirebana n‟indishyi zishingiye ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi kuko ikirego nshinjabyaha kitayireba.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état”, SORAS AG Ltd iburanisha, rivugwa mu ngingo ya 14 y‟Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, iteganya ko : “Urubanza rw‟indishyi ruba ruhagaze kuburanishwa mu gihe cyose urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha rutaracibwa burundu, iyo ikirego cy‟ikurikiranacyaha cyatanzwe mbere cyangwa mu gihe cy‟iburanisha ry‟ikirego cy‟indishyi hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n‟Itegeko Ngenga rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha by‟inkiko”. [18] Ingingo ya 47(2º), b), y‟Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, SORAS AG Ltd ishingiraho ubujurire bwayo, SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 43

Page 71

iteganya ko “imyanzuro yafashwe hakoreshejwe ubukemurampaka ishobora kuvanwaho n‟urukiko ruvugwa mu ngingo ya 8 y‟iri tegeko, iyo urubanza rwaciwe runyuranye n‟amategeko ndemyagihugu ya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda”. [19] Ku birebana n‟ingingo y‟ubujurire ya SORAS AG Ltd y‟uko ikirego cyayo kigomba kwakirwa kubera ko inteko y‟abakemurampaka yafashe umwanzuro inyuranya n‟itegeko ndemyagihugu kuko yanze guhagarika iburanisha ry‟ikirego cy‟indishyi yagejejweho na TROMEA Ltd mu gihe hari hagitegerejwe icyemezo kizava mu rubanza nshinjabyaha ku bujura bwari bwakozwe mu bubiko bw‟iyi Sosiyete, Urukiko rurasanga imvugo y‟uhagarariye SORAS AG Ltd y‟uko ihame rya "le criminel tient le civil en état", ari ndemyagihugu, ifite ishingiro, ikaba ishimangirwa n‟ibyanditswe n‟abahanga Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS na ADRIEN MASSET, mu gitabo cyabo Manuel de procédure pénale1, ibi bakabishingira ku byemejwe mu rubanza rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rusesa Imanza rwo mu Bubiligi,2 aho rwemeje ko iri hame ari ndemyagihugu kandi ko ababuranyi badashobora kwivutsa ko rikoreshwa ndetse ko umucamanza uburanisha ikirego cy‟indishyi aryubahiriza abyibwirije. Abo bahanga basobanura kandi ko ibyo kuba ihame rya « le criminel tient le civil en état » ari ndemyagihugu, bikurikizwa iyo ibyangombwa byuzuye bivuze

1Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS et Adrien MASSET, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, 2006, Larcier, p.203, D. Quant au caractère de la règle du criminel tient le civil en état, les auteurs ci-hauts cites disent “qu‟elle est d‟ordre public”. Si les conditions sont remplies, la surséance doit être prononcée même d‟office et ce, à peine de nullité. p.203, D. 2 La Cour de Cassation a admis que la règle du criminel tient le civil état est « d‟ordre public », voir Cass., 23/03/1992, Pas., I, p. 664 ; et que "les parties ne peuvent pas y renoncer et le juge civil doit même surseoir d‟office ", voir Cass., 01/02/1951, Pas., I, p.357. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44

Page 72

rero ko Urukiko ruburanisha urubanza mbonezamubano rushobora kwibwiriza guhagarika iburanisha kugeza urubanza nshinjabyaha rurangiye nubwo nta muburanyi waba wazamuye iyo nzitizi. [20] Ikindi kibazo kigomba gusuzumwa noneho ni icyo kumenya niba kuba ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état” ari ndemyagihugu, byonyine bihagije kugira ngo ryubahirizwe muri uru rubanza. Mu gusuzuma iki kibazo, ni ngombwa kubanza kumenya imiterere y‟ikirego cy‟indishyi kivugwa mu ngingo ya 14 y‟Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru; igisubizo kikaba kiboneka mu ngingo ya 160 y‟Itegeko Nº51/2008 ryo kuwa 09/09/2008 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ubasha by‟Inkiko, iteganya ko “Ikirego cy‟indishyi kivugwa ari ikigamije kuryoza ibyangiritse biturutse ku cyaha. Ufite uburenganzira bwo kurega ni uwangirijwe n‟icyaha cyangwa abandi babifitiye uburenganzira”. [21] Ku byerekeranye n‟itangwa ry‟ikirego cy‟indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha, ingingo ya 161 y‟Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa haruguru, iteganya ko “Ikirego cy‟indishyi gishobora gukurikiranwa hamwe n‟icy‟uburyozwacyaha mu rukiko rumwe. Gishobora kandi no gukurikiranwa ukwacyo. Icyo gihe, ishyirwa mu bikorwa ryacyo riba rihagaze igihe cyose hataracibwa urubanza burundu ku kirego cy‟ikurikiranacyaha. Iryo hame ry‟uko ikirego cy‟indishyi gitegereza icibwa ry‟urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha rikurikizwa: 1. Iyo ikirego cy‟inshinjabyaha cyatanzwe mbere y‟ikirego cy‟indishyi; 2. Iyo ikirego cy‟inshinjabyaha cyatanzwe hagati mu iburanisha ry‟ikirego cy‟indishyi. Muri icyo gihe, SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 45

Page 73

umucamanza ugomba kuburanisha ikirego cy‟indishyi ni na we uburanisha ikirego cy‟inshinjabyaha; 3. Iyo mu rubanza rw‟indishyi havutsemo ingoboka yo mu rwego rw‟inshinjabyaha, umucamanza waburanishaga ikirego cy‟indishyi ni na we uburanisha iyo ngoboka yo mu rwego rw‟inshinjabyaha. Icyakora, iyo ingoboka yo mu rwego rw‟inshinjabyaha yavuzwe mu gace ka 3° k‟igika cya kabiri cy‟iyi ngingo iri mu bubasha bw‟urundi rukiko rwisumbuyeho, iburanisha ry‟indishyi n‟ikirego nshinjabyaha byohererezwa hamwe muri urwo rukiko rwisumbuye, akaba ari rwo rubiburanishiriza hamwe. Ikirego cy‟inshinjabyaha ntigishobora guhagarika ikirego cy‟indishyi iyo nta sano bifitanye”. [22] Ku kibazo cyo kumenya niba ikirego cy‟indishyi TROMEA Ltd yatanze mu rukiko nkemurampaka ari ikivugwa mu ngingo ya 160 imaze kuvugwa haruguru, dosiye y‟urubanza igaragaza ko ikirego TROMEA Ltd yashyikirije inteko y‟abakemurampaka ari igisaba indishyi zikomoka ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi yagiranye na SORAS AG Ltd, inyungu z‟ibyo yavukijwe iyo iza kuba yaracuruje amabuye y‟agaciro yibwe, indishyi z‟ubukererwe kubera ko SORAS AG Ltd yatinze kuyishyura, indishyi zo kuba SORAS AG Ltd itarubahirije amasezerano bagiranye n‟izindi zinyuranye. [23] Ikirego cya TROMEA Ltd gisobanuwe haruguru gitandukanye n‟icy‟indishyi kivugwa mu ngingo ya 160 yavuzwe haruguru, kuko n‟ubwo habaye icyaha cy‟ubujura ndetse abakekwa kuba baragikoze bakaba bakurikiranwa mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46

Page 74

rubanza nshinjabyaha, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi TROMEA yaregeye mu rukiko nkemurampaka zidakomoka ku cyaha cy‟ubujura yakorewe, ahubwo zikomoka ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi yagiranye na SORAS AG Ltd, bityo ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 14 y‟Itegeko Nº30/2013 ryo kuwa 24/05/2013 ryavuzwe haruguru by‟uko urubanza rw‟indishyi ruba ruhagaze kuburanishwa mu gihe cyose urubanza rw‟inshinjabyaha rutaracibwa burundu, bikaba bitakurikizwa muri uru rubanza kuko nk‟uko inteko y‟abakemurampaka yabyemeje mu mwanzuro wayo, nta mpungenge y‟ivuguruzanya rishobora kubaho mu byemezo byafatwa n‟inkiko zombi kuko indishyi ziregerwa mu rubanza rw‟ubucuruzi ari izishingiye ku masezerano y‟ubwishingizi. [24] Urukiko rurasanga rero kuba ihame rya “le criminel tient le civil en état”, ari ndemyagihugu, iyi kamere yonyine idahagije kugira ngo ibirivugwamo byubahirizwe mu rubanza urwo arirwo rwose, kuko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 160 yavuzwe haruguru, indishyi zivugwa zigomba kuba zikomoka ku cyaha, ibi akaba atariko bimeze muri uru rubanza. [25] Abahanga mu mategeko Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS na ADRIEN MASSET, bavuzwe haruguru nabo bemeranya n‟ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru, aho bavuga ko ikirego cy‟indishyi gituma Umucamanza wakiregewe mu rubanza rwihariye ahagarika iburanisha ryacyo, ari igifitanye isano n‟ikirego cy‟ikurikiranacyaha cyatanzwe mbere cyangwa iburanisha ryaratangiye.3

3 Quant à la portée du principe du "criminel tient le civil en état", nous lisons sous la plume de Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS et Adrien MASSET, que “l‟action civile, qui oblige le juge qui en est saisi séparément SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 47

Page 75

[26] Hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga ingingo y‟ubujurire ya SORAS AG Ltd nta shingiro ifite kuko idahura n‟ibiteganywa n‟ingingo ya 47(2º), agace ka b), y‟Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, nyamara SORAS AG Ltd ivuga ko ariyo ishingiraho isaba ko umwanzuro w‟Urukiko nkemurampaka uteshwa agaciro.

3. Kumenya niba ibyo TROMEA Ltd isaba birenze ibiteganyijwe mu masezerano y’ubwishingizi. [27] Me Nkurunziza François Xavier, uburanira SORAS AG Ltd avuga ko indi mpamvu yatumye bajuririra icyemezo cyafashwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi cyo kwanga gutesha agaciro umwanzuro w‟Urukiko nkemurampaka, ari uko rwasesenguye nabi ingingo ya 47 y‟Itegeko Nº005/2008, ryavuzwe haruguru, maze rwemeza ko SORAS AG Ltd nta mpamvu n‟imwe yatanze isaba gukuraho icyemezo cy‟abakemurampaka mu ziteganywa n‟iyo ngingo kandi SORAS AG Ltd ijurira yarerekanye impamvu zigaragaza ko icyo cyemezo cyafashwe mu buryo bunyuranye n‟ibiteganywa n‟amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi yagiranye na TROMEA Ltd. Asobanura ko bagaragarije Urukiko ko ibyo TROMEA Ltd yishyuza bidateganyijwe mu masezerano y‟ubwishingizi, bikaba binyuranyije n‟ingingo ya 204 n‟iya 225 za “conditions spéciales

à surseoir à statuer, est celle qui est relative à des points qui sont communs à une action publique intentée avant ou en cours de l‟exercice”. p.202, C. 4 L‟assurance ne peut pas être une cause de bénéfice pour l‟assuré, elle ne lui garantit que la réparation de ses pertes réelles, abstraction faite de toute privation de jouissance, de bénéfice ou des intérêts. 5 Si, de mauvaise foi, le Souscripteur ou l‟Assuré fait de fausses déclarations, exagère le montant des dommages, prétend détruits ou disparus des objets n‟existant pas lors du sinistre, dissimule ou soustrait tout ou partie des objets ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48

Page 76

d‟assurance”, kuko icyemezo cy‟ubukemurampaka cyahaniye SORAS AG Ltd ikintu kimwe kabiri, kuko yaciwe inyungu za 12.992.726Frw z‟ubukererwe, TROMEA Ltd irongera igenerwa 5.000.000Frw bise inyungu n‟indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano. Ibi rero ngo bigaragaza ko icyemezo cy‟abakemurampaka cyarengereye imbibi z‟ibiteganywa n‟amasezerano, uko kurenga imbibi akaba aribyo biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 47, 1º c), y‟Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru. [28] Ababuranira TROMEA Ltd, bavuga ko ibyo SORAS AG Ltd ivuga atari ukuri, ko icyemezo cy‟abakemurampaka kigenera TROMEA Ltd indishyi kitanyuranyije n‟amasezerano y‟ubwishingizi, ko ahubwo Abakemurampaka bashingiye ku ngingo ya 20 n‟iya 22 zavuzwe haruguru, banze kugenera TROMEA Ltd indishyi zose yasabye bavuga ko hishyurwa gusa ibyibwe ku gaciro kabyo. Bavuga ko basanga indishyi z‟ubukererwe TROMEA Ltd yagenewe zifite ishingiro, kuko iyo SORAS AG Ltd yubahiriza amasezerano ikishyura mu gihe kitarenze iminsi 30 ivugwa mu ngingo ya 27 ya "conditions spéciales", bitari guteza igihombo TROMEA Ltd, kuba rero SORAS AG Ltd yaraciwe inyungu n‟indishyi zishingiye ku ngingo za 1376 na 1387 y‟Itegeko N°45/11 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, bikaba bifite ishingiro.

assurés, ne déclare pas l‟existence d‟autres assurances portant sur les mêmes risques, emploie comme justification des documents inexacts ou use de moyens frauduleux, l‟Assuré est entièrement déchu de tout droit à indemnité pour ce sinistre. 6 Uruhande rwarenganyijwe rufite uburenganzira bwo kubona indishyi zitanzwe n‟urundi ruhande rutubahirije ibisabwa mu masezerano, keretse iyo ikirego kigamije kubona indishyi cyahagaritswe cyangwa cyaravuyeho. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 49

Page 77

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Ingingo ya 47 y‟Itegeko N°005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi, iteganya ko: "Imyanzuro yafashwe hakoreshejwe Ubukemurampaka ishobora kuvanwaho n‟Urukiko ruvugwa mu ngingo ya 8 y‟iri tegeko igihe gusa: 1°(c) "Iyo uwiyambaje ubukemurampaka usaba iryo vanwaho atanze ibimenyetso ko imyanzuro yafashwe ishingiye ku kibazo kitateganyijwe mu masezerano cyangwa kitari mu ngingo ziteganywa mu masezerano y‟ubukemurampaka cyangwa ikubiyemo ibyemezo birenze ibiteganyijwe mu masezerano ku buryo bwo gukiranurwa n‟abakemurampaka, nyamara ku buryo, niba imyanzuro y‟imikirize yerekeranye n‟ibibazo byashyikirijwe Inteko y‟Abakemurampaka iramutse itandukanyijwe n‟ibitarashyikirijwe Inteko, haseswa gusa igice cy‟imikirize gifata imyanzuro ku bibazo bitashyikirijwe inteko". [30] Ku birebana n‟ingingo y‟ubujurire ya SORAS AG Ltd y‟uko umwanzuro w‟abakemurampaka ugomba guteshwa agaciro kubera ko mu kugenera TROMEA Ltd inyungu n‟indishyi z‟ubukererwe zo kutubahiriza amasezerano barenze imbibi z‟ibiteganywa n‟amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka, Urukiko rurasanga iyi mvugo nta shingiro ifite, kuko muri uwo mwanzuro impande zombi zari zumvikanye ko

7 Ibigenderwaho muri rusange mu kubara indishyi. Uruhande rurengana rufite uburenganzira ku ndishyi zishingiye ku nyungu rwateganyaga zibarwa hakurikijwe: 1° itakazagaciro ku ruhande rwarenganyijwe rishingiye ku byo urundi ruhande rwiyemeje bitewe n‟uko byabuze cyangwa se bidahagije; 2° ikindi gihombo cyose gitewe no kutubahiriza amasezerano, n‟ikindi gihombo cyose cyashamikiraho; 3° ibyakoreshwa byose cyangwa ikindi gihombo uruhande rutubahirije amasezerano rwirinze kubera kudakora igisabwa. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50

Page 78

abakemurampaka bazasuzuma ibikubiye mu myanzuro y‟urega n‟iy‟uregwa, kandi nkuko bigaragara mu myanzuro ya TROMEA Ltd yaregaga, yasabye inyungu z‟ubukererwe (reba agace ka 55 ka sentence arbitrale) inasaba indishyi zo kutubahiriza amasezerano (reba agace ka 61), ko rero abakemurampaka batigeze barenga imbibi z‟amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka, kuba icyemezo mu mizi bafashe kitaranyuze SORAS AG Ltd, bikaba bidasobanura ko bagiye hanze y‟ibyumvikanyweho mu masezerano y‟ubukemurampaka, ahubwo ikigaragara ari uko SORAS AG Ltd, ishaka kwitiranya amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka na "conditions spéciales" d‟assurance. [31] Hashingiwe kuri ibyo bisobanuro, Urukiko rurasanga umwanzuro w‟ubukemurampaka utateshwa agaciro kubera ko indishyi ndetse n‟inyungu abakemurampaka bageneye TROMEA Ltd, babikoze babisabwe nk‟uko amasezerano y‟ubukemurampaka abiteganya, bityo iyi ngingo y‟ubujurire ya SORAS AG Ltd nayo ikaba idahura n‟ibiteganywa n‟ingingo ya 47, 1º c) y‟Itegeko Nº005/2008 ryo kuwa 14/02/2008 ryerekeye ubukemurampaka n‟ubwunzi mu bibazo by‟ubucuruzi.

4. Ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na TROMEA Ltd. [32] Ababuranira TROMEA Ltd, bavuga ko hashize umwaka n‟amezi arindwi (7) TROMEA Ltd yibwe kandi SORAS AG Ltd ikaba ikomeje kuruhanya idashaka kwishyura, basaba Urukiko gushingira ku ngingo ya 137 n‟iya 138 z‟Itegeko N°45/11 ryo kuwa 25/11/2011 rigenga amasezerano, maze SORAS AG Ltd ikaryozwa ibyo TROMEA Ltd yahombye byose, bihwanye na 31.182.541Frw, igahabwa na 2.000.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 51

Page 79

[33] Me Nkurunziza avuga ko ubujurire bwa TROMEA Ltd ntacyo yabuvugaho kuko urubanza rutari mu mizi, kuko igisuzumwa muri uru rubanza ari ukumenya niba icyemezo cyafashwe n‟abakemurampaka cyavanwaho (recours en annulation).

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Ku byerekeranye na 31.182.541Frw ahwanye n‟ibyo TROMEA Ltd yahombye, Urukiko rurasanga iyi ngingo y‟ubujurire itasuzumwa kubera ko uru Rukiko rutaburanisha urubanza mu mizi. Naho ku birebana n‟amafaranga y‟ikurikirarubanza hamwe n‟igihembo cya Avoka TROMEA Ltd isaba, Urukiko rurasanga, kuba hari abanyamategeko yashyizeho kugira ngo bayiburanire kuri uru rwego, yagenerwa mu bushishozi bwarwo 1.000.000Frw kuko 2.000.000Frw isaba ari menshi. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [35] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd nta shingiro bufite. [36] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na TROMEA Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [37] Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd guha TROMEA Ltd 1.000.000Frw akubiyemo ay‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka igenewe kuri uru rwego. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52

Page 80

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

Page 82

URUBANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

Page 84

SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RCAA0049/14/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukanyundo na Rugabirwa, J.) 25 Ugushyingo 2016] Indishyi – Igenwa ry‟indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga – Indishyi mbangamirabukungu – Abemerewe guhabwa indishyi mbangamirabukungu – Indishyi mbangamirabukungu zihabwa abaribatunzwe na nyakwigendera bateganywa n‟amategeko ndetse n‟abandiyaratunzeiyo babigaragarije ibimenyetso – Itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001, ryerekeye itangwa ry‟indishyi ku bahohotewe biturutse ku mpanuka zo ku mubiri zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 9(1). Indishyi – Indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano – Ibarwa ry‟indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano – Umushahara muto ntaregwa – Indishyi z‟ibangamira ku muco zibarwa hashingiwe ku mushahara muto ntaregwa wemewe n‟amategeko – Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw‟umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 23. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma y‟urupfu rwa Muhumuza wahitanywe n‟impanuka ya moto yari yagonganye n‟imodoka byombi bifite ubwishingizi muri SORAS AG Ltd.Umuhoza, Izabayo na Niyoyita bareze SORAS AG Ltd mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge basaba kuyitegeka ko yabaha indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz‟ibangamira ry‟umubano, 57

Page 85

amafaranga baguze ibyemezo binyuranye, ayo batanzeho ingwate y‟amagarama n‟igihembo cya Avoka. SORAS AG Ltd yiregura ivuga ko batahabwa ibyo basaba kuko muri bo nta n‟umwe nyakwigendera yari atunze. Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje ko nyakwigendera ariwe warutunze abarega hashingiwe kunyandiko yanditswe n‟Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w‟Umurenge wa Gitega maze rutegeka

SORAS guha abarega indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz‟ibangamira ry‟umubano hamwe n‟igihembo cya Avoka ndetse ikanabasubiza amafaranga batanzeho ingwate y‟amagarama. SORAS AG Ltd yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru ivuga ko abarega bahawe indishyi mbangamirabukungu batazikwiye kuberako icyemezo batanze kigaragaza ko bari batunzwe na nyakwigendera gikemagwa kandi ko igipimo cy‟ibitsa cyari gikwiye kubarirwaho ari 8% gikoreshwa na Banki Nkuru y‟u Rwanda aho kuba 4% akoreshwa n‟amabanki asanzwe. Ikomeza ivuga ko indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano zitari gushingirwa ku mushahara nyakwigendera yahembwaga ku mwaka kuko itegeko rivuga umushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko. Umuhoza nabagenzi be batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bavuga ko indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano zabazwe nabi kuko umucamanza yibagiwe gukuba imibare abonye na 12. Urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd nta shingiro bufite naho ubwatanzwe na Umuhoza n‟abagenzi be bufite ishingiro. SORAS AG Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw‟ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije impamvu yajuririrwaga maze rugenera abaregwa indishyi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 58

Page 86

mbangamirabukungu kandi batazikwiye kuko batari batunzwe n‟uwahohotewe; ikindi rwabaze indishyi ku gipimo kitari cyo kuko rwazibariye ku gipimo cy‟ibitsa kingana na 8% mu gihe urubanza rucibwa cyari kuri 7,960%, ndetse rugenera abaregwa indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubano rushingiye ku mushahara nyakwigendera yahembwaga ku mwaka kandi zibarirwa ku mushahara w‟umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko ungana 2,500Frw wemejwe n‟Urukiko rw‟ikirenga. Umuhoza n‟abavandimwe be bireguye bavuga ko iyi ngingo y‟ubujurire nta shingiro ifite kuko nta kimenyetso na kimwe SORAS AG Ltd itanga gihamya ko bataribatunzwe na nyakwigendera. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Indishyi mbangamirabukungu zihabwa abaribatunzwe na nyakwigendera ariko rero abadafite uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza ibibatunga ntibabuzwa gusaba ibibatunga iyo bagaragaje ikimenyetso ko bari batunzwe na nyakwigendera. Bityo rero icyemezo cyatanzwe n‟ubuyobozi bw‟umurenge wa Gitega nta gaciro cyahabwa kuko atari kimenyetso gihamya ko Umuhoza n‟abavandimwebe bari batunzwe mu buryo buhoraho na nyakwigendera cyane ko kitanagaragaza impamvu idasazwe yatumaga abatunga kandi bose bujuje imyaka y‟ubukure.

2. Ibijyanye n‟igipimo cy‟ibitsa cyashingirwaho mu kubara indishyi mbangamirabukungu ntibyasuzumwa kuko izo ndishyi zitagenwe muri uru rubanza.

3. Indishyi z‟ibangamira ry‟umubanozibarwa hashingiwe ku mushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko ariko bitewe n‟uko ubuzima bugenda burushaho guhendakubera ko ibiciro by‟ibintu nkenerwa bya ngombwa bidahwema kuzamuka, ndetse n‟imishahara n‟ibihembo bikagenda byongerwa kugira SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 59

Page 87

ngo abahaha bashobore guhangana n‟izamuka ry‟ibyo biciro; umushahara muto ntarengwa (SMIG) nawo ukaba ukwiye kuzamuka ugashyirwa ku mafaranga 3.000Frw akaba kandi ari nawo washingirwaho mu kugena izo indishyi abavandimwe banyakwigendera bagomba guhabwa.

4. Igihe ababuranyi bose bafite ibyo batsindiye ndetse n‟ibyo batsindirwa indishyi z‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cy‟avoka ntibigenerwa. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Ingwate y’amagarama yatanzwe ihwanye nibyakozwe mu rubanza. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001, ryerekeye itangwa ry‟indishyi ku bahohotewe biturutse ku mpanuka zo ku mubiri zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 9(1). Itegeko Nº 42/1988 ryo kuwa 27 Ukwakira 1988 rishyiraho Interuro y‟ibanze n‟igitabo cya mbere cy‟Urwunge rw‟amategeko mbonezamubano, ingingo ya 198, iya 199 n‟iya 200. Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw‟umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, ingingo ya 23. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Laëtitia Stasi, Droit Civil: Personnes, Incapacités, Famille; Edition Paradigme, Orléans 2007, pp.259-260. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60

Page 88

Jean Carbonnier, Introduction, les personnes, la famille, l‟enfant, le couple, 1ère édition, “Quadrige”, Presses Universitaires de France, 2004, p.799. Yvonne Lambert-Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, système d‟indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, p.267. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rukomoka ku rupfu rw‟uwitwa Muhumuza Jean Pierre wahitanywe n‟impanuka ya moto yagonganye n‟imodoka, byombi bifite ubwishingizi muri SORAS AG Ltd, maze Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, abavandimwe ba nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre, baregera Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, basaba gutegeka SORAS AG Ltd kubaha indishyi mbonezamusaruro, iz‟ibangamirwa ku muco, amafaranga baguze attestations zinyuranye, ayo batanzeho ingwate y‟amagarama n‟igihembo cya Avoka, indishyi zose basaba zingana na 76.754.048Frw. SORAS AG Ltd yireguye ivuga ko batahabwa ibyo basaba kuko muri bo nta n‟umwe nyakwigendera yari atunze. [2] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RC0656/13/TGI/NYGE ku wa 07/02/2014, rwemeza ko nyakwigendera ariwe wari utunze abarega hashingiwe ku nyandiko yo ku wa 30/07/2013, yanditswe n‟Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w‟Umurenge wa Gitega, naho ku birebana n‟indishyi mbonezamusaruro, ruvuga ko zibarwa hashingiwe ko nyakwigendera yinjizaga 499.289Frw ku kwezi kandi akaba yarapfuye asigaje imyaka 38. Bityo, rutegeka SORAS guha SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 61

Page 89

abarega, indishyi zose hamwe zingana na 58.726.799Frw zikubiyemo 57.677.866Frw y‟indishyi mbonezamusaruro, 748.933Frw y‟indishyi z‟ibangamira ku muco na 300.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka, rutegeka na none SORAS AG Ltd kubasubiza 12.000Frw batanzeho ingwate y‟amagarama. [3] SORAS AG Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko Rukuru, ivuga ko abarega bahawe indishyi mbangamirabukungu batazikwiriye kubera ko icyemezo cy‟Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w‟Umurenge wa Gitega kivuga ko nyakwigendera yari abatunze gikemangwa, kandi ko taux de placement yari ikwiriye kubarirwa kuri 8% kuko aricyo gipimo gikoreshwa na Banki Nkuru y‟u Rwanda, aho kuba 4% akoreshwa n‟amabanki asanzwe. Ivuga kandi ko préjudice moral itari gushingirwa kuri salaire net annuel ya nyakwigendera kuko itegeko rivuga umushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko. Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques nabo batanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bavuga ko indishyi z‟ibangamira ku muco zabazwe nabi kuko umucamanza yibagiwe gukuba imibare abonye na 12. [4] Urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza RCA0089/14/HC/KIG ku wa 28/11/2014, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd nta shingiro bufite, rusobanura ko SORAS AG Ltd uretse amagambo gusa y‟uko nyakwigendera atariwe wari utunze abayireze, ko nta kimenyetso yabashije kugaragariza Urukiko gihinyuza icyemezo cy‟Ubuyobozi bw‟Umurenge cyashyikirijwe Urukiko, kandi ko n‟ibindi yajuririye nabyo nta bimenyetso ibitangira. Ku birebana na taux de placement, SORAS AG Ltd ivuga ko yari ikwiriye kubarirwa kuri 8% igipimo gikoreshwa na BNR aho gushingira kuri 4% ya za Banki z‟ubucuruzi. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62

Page 90

[5] Urukiko rwasanze SORAS AG Ltd usibye kubivuga gusa itagaragaza taux yagenderwagaho na BNR igihe ubwishyu bwagombaga gukorwa, n‟urubanza rw‟icyitegererezo yatanze, impanuka ruvuga ikaba itarabereye rimwe n‟iyo muri uru rubanza, kandi Iteka rya Perezida n° 31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw‟umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, rivuga ko igipimo gishingirwaho ari ikingana nibura n‟igipimo cy‟inyungu y‟ibitsa gikoreshwa n‟amabanki, bivuze amabanki asanzwe kuko ariyo menshi aho kuganisha kuri BNR, iba ari imwe rukumbi. Ruvuga kandi ko ku birebana na préjudice moral, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rutari gushingira ku mushahara muto ntarengwa “SMIG” mu gihe umushahara nyakwigendera yakoreraga wari uzwi neza. Rwemeje kandi ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe n‟abaregwa bavuga ko imibare yakozwe nabi bufite ishingiro, kuko habayeho kwibagirwa gukuba n‟umubare 12. Urwo rukiko rwategetse SORAS AG Ltd guha Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques indishyi zose hamwe zingana na 67.465.068Frw, akubiyemo 8.987.202Frw y‟indishyi zibangamirwa ku muco, 57.677.866Frw y‟indishyi z‟ibangamirabukungu na 500.000Frw y‟ikurikirana rubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka, yo ku rwego rw‟ubujurire. [6] SORAS AG Ltd yajuririye urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga, ivuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije impamvu yajuririrwaga, rugenera abaregwa indishyi mbangamirabukungu kandi batazikwiye kuko batari batunzwe n‟uwahohotewe; ko kandi Urukiko rwabaze indishyi ku gipimo kitari cyo kuko rwazibariye ku gipimo cy‟ibitsa kingana na 8% (taux de placement) mu gihe urubanza rucibwa cyari kuri 7,960%, ndetse rugenera abaregwa indishyi z‟ibangamirwa ku muco rushingiye SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 63

Page 91

ku mushahara nyakwigendera yahembwaga ku mwaka kandi zibarirwa ku mushahara w‟umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko (salaire annuel minimum interprofessionnel garanti). [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame, ku wa 04/10/2016, SORAS AG Ltd ihagarariwe na Me Mukanzigiye Donatille, naho Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques baburanirwa na Me Nzayisenga Charles. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba abavandimwe ba nyakwigwendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre bafite uburenganzira ku ndishyi z’ibangamirabukungu baregeye. [8] Me Mukanzigiye Donatille uburanira SORAS AG Ltd avuga ko Urukiko rwageneye abaregwa indishyi z‟ibangamirabukungu kandi batazikwiye kuko izo ndishyi zihabwa abafite uburenganzira ku buryo bwumvikana ko bari batunzwe n‟uwahohotewe nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 22 y‟Iteka rya Perezida N°31/ ryo ku wa 25/08/2003 rishyiraho uburyo bwo kwishyura indishyi ku bubabare bw‟umubiri buturutse ku mpanuka zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga. Avuga ko Urukiko rwageneye izo ndishyi abaregwa rushingiye ku cyemezo cy‟Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w‟Umurenge wa Gitega, kivuga ko bari batunzwe na nyakwigendera kandi ataricyo cyagombaga gushingirwaho kuko abarega bose bari bafite imyaka y‟ubukure harimo n‟uwakoraga kandi batanabarizwa mu Murenge umwe na nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre, ku buryo Urukiko ntaho rwari guhera ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64

Page 92

ruhamya ko ariwe wari ubatunze, kuko bitumvikana ukuntu umuntu utuye mu Gitega yatunga utuye Rwezamenyo cyangwa utuye i Nyamirambo. Asobanura ko bene izi ndishyi zihabwa umugore n‟abana ba nyakwigendera, ariko ko nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre ntabo yasize. Asobanura ko la prise en charge batayikoreye ubushakashatsi, ariko ko ubundi umuntu atunga umuntu bari kumwe mu rugo babana kandi bigaragara ko ariwe ushinzwe urwo rugo (responsable). [9] Me Nzayisenga Charles uburanira Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, avuga ko iyi mpamvu y‟ubujurire nta shingiro ifite kuko nta kimenyetso na kimwe gihamya ko nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre atariwe wari utunze abavandimwe be, ko nta hantu na hamwe ingingo ya 22 y‟Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe haruguru, SORAS AG Ltd ishingiraho ubujurire bwayo, iteganya ko abahabwa indishyi bagomba kuba ari abana ba nyakwigendera cyangwa umugore we, kandi ko muri dosiye harimo icyemezo gihamya ko nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre ariwe wari utunze bariya bavandimwe be. Asobanura ko kuba utunzwe (pris en charge) n‟undi muntu bitavuze ko byanze bikunze ugomba kubana nawe mu nzu imwe cyangwa ko aba akugaburira.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [10] Ingingo ya 9, igika cya mbere, y‟Itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa 19/09/2001, ryerekeye itangwa ry‟indishyi ku bahohotewe biturutse ku mpanuka zo ku mubiri zitewe n‟ibinyabiziga, iteganya ko mbere yo gutangira kuregera indishyi mu nkiko, uwangirijwe cyangwa abamuhagarariye bemewe n‟amategeko, cyangwa iyo yapfuye, abafite uburenganzira ku bintu bye, bishyuza indishyi uwishingiye SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 65

Page 93

uwateje impanuka, cyangwa byaba ngombwa Ikigega cy‟ingoboka ku binyabiziga bigenzwa na moteri bigendera ku butaka, binyuze mu bwumvikane, bakamwereka inyandiko zose zemeza ishingiro ry‟ibyo basaba. [11] Ku birebana n‟indishyi mbangamirabukungu, isesengura ry‟ingingo y‟itegeko imaze kuvugwa haruguru, ryumvikanisha ko, abafite uburenganzira bwo gusaba izo ndishyi ari abari batunzwe n‟uwahohotewe wapfuye. [12] Ku byerekeranye n‟igisobanuro cy‟amagambo “gutunga umuntu”, ingingo ya 198 CCL.I iteganya ko “umurimo nshinganwa wo gutunga umuntu ni uwo itegeko ritegeka umuntu gutanga ibitunga umubiri k‟uwundi muntu ubikeneye”. Ingingo ya 199, yo ikavuga ko ibitunga umuntu bitangwa mu mafaranga cyangwa mu bintu. Ingingo ya 200 yo, igateganya ko abashyingiranywe bafite umurimo nshinganwa wo guhana ibibatunga. Ababyeyi nabo bafite umurimo nshinganwa wo guha abana babo ibibatunga n‟abana bikaba uko. Iyo ngingo iteganya kandi ko abana bagomba gufasha abo bakomokaho igihe batishoboye. Abo nabo bagomba gufasha abana. [13] Mu miburanire yayo, SORAS ivuga ko abavandimwe ba nyakwigendera batagomba kugenerwa indishyi mbangamirabukungu kubera ko atari abatunze, bityo ko icyangombwa cyatanzwe n‟Ubuyobozi bw‟Umurenge wa Gitega kivuga ko yari abatunze kidakwiye guhabwa agaciro. [14] Mu ngingo ya 200 CCL.I yavuzwe haruguru, nta hagaragara ko umuntu afite umurimo nshinganwa wo gutunga abavandimwe be (ses frères et sœurs). Umuhanga mu mategeko Laëtitia STASI nawe avuga ko inshingano yo gutanga ibitunga umuntu iba ireba gusa abafitanye amasano ataziguye kandi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66

Page 94

kugeza ku gisanira cya kabiri no kurengaho, ni ukuvuga hagati y‟abuzukuru n‟aba nyirakuruza na sekuruza. Akomeza avuga ko hagati y‟abashyingiranywe, ubushyingire butuma havuka inshingano hagati y‟imiryamgo yabo ariko ko inshingano yo gutanga ibitunga umuntu ibaho igihe gusa ubushyingire bukiriho, asoza avuga ko nta murimo nshinganwa wo gutunga umuntu uba hagati y‟abavukana, ni ukuvuga hagati ya musaza na mushiki we1. [15] Nanone, umuhanga mu mategeko Jean Carbonnier mu gitabo cye Droit Civil, les personnes, la famille, l‟enfant et le couple, nawe ashimangira ibyavuzwe na mugenzi we Laëtitia STASI umaze kuvugwa haruguru, ko nta nshingano yo guha ibitunga umuntu abo muvukana, aho avuga tugenekereje ko amasano yose aba hagati y‟abantu adatanga uburenganzira ku bitunga umuntu, ko ababigiraho uburenganzira ari abateganywa n‟amategeko, agakomeza yerekana ko abafitanye inshingano yo guhana ibitunga umubiri ari abafite amasano ataziguye ku bisanira byose, ariko ko iyi nshingano itaba hagati y‟abavukana2.

1 Laëtitia Stasi, Droit Civil: Personnes, Incapacités, Famille; Edition Paradigme, Orléans 2007, pp.259-260. “On ne trouve donc d‟obligation alimentaire stricto sensu qu‟en ligne directe et dans les relations entre parents du deuxième degré et au-delà (par exemple dans les rapports petits-enfants et grands-parents). Entre alliés, le mariage fait naître des relations entre les deux familles mais l‟obligation n‟existe que tant que dure le mariage. La liste des obligés est trèsétroite : l‟obligation alimentaire ne joue pas entre frère et sœur”. 2Jean Carbonnier, Introduction, les personnes, la famille, l‟enfant, le couple, 1ère édition, “Quadrige”, Presses Universitaires de France, 2004, p.799. “Ce ne sont pas tous les rapports de famille humainement reconnaissables qui donnent lieu à l‟obligation alimentaire, mais seulement ceux auxquels la loi donnent lieu à l‟obligationalimentaire, mais seulement ceux auxquels la loi l‟attache expressément. Entre parents, le rapport alimentaire existe en ligne SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 67

Page 95

[16] Ku birebana n‟uru rubanza, Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, bavuga ko indishyi mbangamirabukungu basaba, bazishingira ku byago bagize byo kubura ibibatunga (préjudice matériel) bahabwaga n‟umuvandimwe wabo Muhumuza Jean Pierre wazize impanuka yo mu muhanda kandi ariwe wari ubatunze, bakaba barashyikirije inkiko harimo n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga icyemezo cyatanzwe ku wa 30/07/2013, na Nkurunziza Idrissa wari Umunyamabanga Nshingwabikorwa w‟Umurenge wa Gitega, kivuga ko nyakwigendera yari atunze abavandimwe be. [17] Ubwo impanuka yo mu muhanda yabaga ku wa 19/03/2011, igahitana nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre, Umuhoza Pacifique yari afite imyaka 30, Izabayo Sylvie afite imyaka 26, naho Niyoyita Jacques afite imyaka 22, bivuga ko bose bari bujuje imyaka y‟ubukure. [18] N‟ubwo amategeko ateganya mu buryo butaziguye (expressément) abafite inshingano yo gutunga abandi, ni ukuvuga abafite umwenda wo gutanga ibitunga umuntu (débiteurs alimentaires) ndetse n‟ababifiteho uburenganzira (créanciers alimentaires), umuhanga Yvonne Lambert-Faivre mu gitabo cye, Droit du dommage corporel, ku gice kirebana no kwishyura indishyi zirebana n‟ibyago bituruka ku rupfu rwatewe n‟impanuka yo mu muhanda, avuga ko n‟abadafite uburenganzira bwo kwishyuza ibitunga umubiri batazitirwa gusaba ibibatunga iyo bagaragaje ikimenyetso ko bari batunzwe

directe à tous les degrés (père et mère et enfants-grands-parents et petits enfants, etc…), jamais en ligne collatérale”. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 68

Page 96

na nyakwigendera koko: atanga urugero nk‟umuvandimwe w‟ikimuga, umwana wabyaye mu batisimu cyangwa imfubyi3. [19] Ku birebana n‟uru rubanza, Urukiko rurasanga hari ikibazo cy‟ibimenyetso kuko icyemezocyatanzwe n‟ubuyobozi bw‟Umurenge wa Gitega atari cyo kimenyetso gihamya ko abaregwa bahabwaga mu buryo buhoraho (regulièrement) ibibatunga na nyakwigendera Muhumuza Jean Pierre, ko kitanagaragaza impamvu idasanzwe yatumaga abatunga kandi bose bujujeimyaka y‟ubukure. Hagombaga rero kugaragazwa ibimenyetso gifatika (urugero nk‟impapuro zo kwa muganga zerekana niba bafite ubumuga, bordereau za banki yaheragaho amafaranga, message za mobile money se yabandikiye aboherereza amafaranga n‟ibindi…) kandi byaboneka Urukiko rwari gushingiraho rusuzuma niba indishyi mbangamirabukungu basaba bazikwiye kuko hashingiwe ku mategeko n‟inyandiko z‟abahanga zasobanuwe haruguru, nta nshingano iteganywa n‟itegeko Muhumuza Jean Pierre yari afite yo gutunga abavandimwe be, ko naho yaba yarabikoraga, byafatwa nk‟ubufatanye busanzwe buba hagati y‟abagize umuryango (entraide familiale). [20] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro byatanzwe haruguru, kuba iriya nyandiko yo ku wa 30/07/2013 yatanzwe n‟Ubuyobozi bw‟Umurenge wa Gitega idaherekejwe n‟ibimenyetso bigizwe n‟inyandiko zose zemeza ishingiro ry‟ibyo abaregwabasaba zivugwa mu ngingo ya 9 y‟Itegeko N°41/2001 ryo ku wa

3Yvonne Lambert-Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, système d‟indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, p.267. “Ainsi ceux qui ne peuvent invoquer une créance alimentaire ne sont pas écartés s‟ils peuvent cependant établir qu‟ils étaient en fait régulièrement entretenus par le défunt”. SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 69

Page 97

19/09/2001 ryavuzwe haruguru, Urukiko rusanga nta burenganzira ku ndishyi mbangamirabukungu zatangwa muri uru rubanza, bityo ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd bukaba bufite ishingiro kuri iyi ngingo. [21] Ku birebana na taux de placement ya 4% Urukiko Rukuru rwakoresheje mu kubara indishyi mbangamirabukungu ruvuga ko ariyo ikoreshwa n‟amabanki, uhagarariye SORAS AG Ltd akaba yari yayinenze avuga ko hakoreshwa 8% itangwa na BNR kuko ari impuzandengo y‟ibipimo bikoreshwa n‟amabanki akorera mu gihugu kandi BNR ikaba ariyo banki ikuriye izindi, Urukiko rurasanga rutasuzuma iyi ngingo y‟ubujurire kuko kiriya gipimo gikoreshwa mu ibara ry‟indishyi mbangamirabukungu, none uru rukiko rukaba rwemeje haruguru ko ntazo abavandimwe ba nyakwigengera Muhumuza Jean Pierre bakwiye kuko nta burenganzira babiherwa n‟amategeko. b. Kumenya umushahara washingirwaho mu kubara indishyi z’ibangamirwa ku muco kimwe n’izindi ndishyi zagenwa. [22] Me Mukanzigiye Donatille uburanira SORAS AG Ltd avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwahaye abaregwa indishyi z‟ibangamirwa ku muco rushingiye ku mushahara nyakwigendera yahembwaga ku mwaka (revenus nets annuels) runyuranyije n‟ibiteganywa n‟ingingo ya 23 y‟Iteka rya Perezida ryavuzwe haruguru, rivuga ko izi ndishyi zibarirwa ku mushahara w‟umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko (salaire minimum interprofessionnel garanti-SMIG), ko ariko kuba nta tegeko rishyiraho SMIG ryari ryashyirwaho mu Rwanda,mu manza zagiye zicibwa n‟inkiko harimo n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, inkiko zarafashe ko umushahara muto waba ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70

Page 98

2.500Frw ku munsi zikurikije urwego rw‟imibereho (niveau de vie) abaturage bagezeho muri rusange muri icyo gihe, urwego imishahara n‟ibihembo byari bigezeho ndetse n‟uko ibiciro byari byifashe ku isoko. [23] Avuga ko indishyi zagombaga kubarwa mu buryo bukurikira: 0,5 x umushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko (SMIG), ni ukuvuga 0,5x 2500Frw x 30 x 12 x 3 = 1.350.000Frw, aho kuba 8.987.202Frw. [24] Asobanura ko hari imanza Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga rwaciye zirimo, urubanza RCAA0003/11/CS rwaciwe ku wa 12/10/2012, mu gika cya 29, n‟urubanza RCAA0212/07/CS rwaciwe ku wa 09/04/2009 mu gika cya 28, ko aho hose hakoreshwaga SMIG ya 2.500Frw, bivuze ko bitari bikwiye gushingira ku mushahara umuntu atahana ku mwaka. [25] Me Nzayisenga Charles uburanira Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, avuga ko nta kimenyetso na kimwe SORAS AG Ltd yagaragarije inkiko zo hasi kivuguruza ibyo zashingiyeho, ko kandi nta n‟ikimenyetso yatanze gituma mu kubara indishyi hashingirwa ku mushahara mpuzandengo muto wemewe n‟amategeko (SMIG). Ku birebana na jurisprudences zatanzwe na SORAS AG Ltd, avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwabisobanuye neza ko nyakwigendera yari afite umushahara w‟umwaka uzwi hakaba hatashingirwa ku mushahara muto w‟umwaka ntarengwa, ko rero izo jurisprudences zitakoreshwa muri uru rubanza kuko SMIG ya 2009 itahura n‟iya 2016, cyane ko mu rubanza rwemeza SMIG ya 2.500Frw, Urukiko rwavuze ko ishingiye ku buryo ubuzima buhagaze, hatirengagijwe ko nta tegeko rishyiraho umushahara muto ntarengwa w‟umwaka mu Rwanda. SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 71

Page 99

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ku birebana n‟umushahara uherwaho mu kubara indishyi z‟ibangamira ku muco, ingingo ya 23, agace ka gatatu, y‟Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003, ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko: “Amafaranga atangirwa ku ibangamira ry‟umubano igihe umuntu apfuye, agomba guhabwa gusa abantu bavugwa hepfo kandi hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n‟iri Teka: Uwo bashakanye; 1 x umushahara w‟umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko; Ababyeyi n‟abana b‟isezerano cyangwa bemewe n‟amategeko: 0.75 x umushahara w‟umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko; Abavandimwe babo: 0,5 x umushahara w‟umwaka muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko”. [27] Urukiko rusesenguye umushahara uvugwa mu ngingo ya 23 imaze kuvugwa hejuru, rurasanga ari umushahara muto ntarengwa wemewe n‟amategeko bita SMIG mu ndimi z‟amahanga, uyu mushahara akaba atari umusaruro w‟umwaka uwahohotewe yatahanaga nk‟uko byemejwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru mu gika cya 13 cy‟imikirize y‟urubanza rwajuririwe. Ku byerekeranye n‟ingano ya SMIG, Urukiko rurasanga kugeza ubu nta tegeko riyishyiraho rirajyaho ariko ko Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga mu rubanza RCAA0202/7/CS, rwaciwe ku wa 09/04/2009, n‟izindi zarushingiyeho (urubanza RCAA0003/11/CS rwo ku wa 12/10/2012 n‟urubanza RSOCAA0112/10/CS rwo ku wa 15/02/2015), rwemeje ko yaba 2.500Frw, uyu mubare ukaba waragenywe mu bushishozi bw‟uru rukiko rushingiye ku biciro biri ku isoko. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72

Page 100

[28] Urukiko rurasanga ariko uko imyaka ishira indi igataha, ubuzima bugenda burushaho guhenda kubera ko ibiciro by‟ibintu nkenerwa bya ngombwa bidahwema kuzamuka, ndetse n‟imishahara n‟ibihembo bikagenda byongerwa kugira ngo abahaha bashobore guhangana n‟izamuka ry‟ibyo biciro, rukaba rusanga ubu SMIG nayo ikwiye kuzamuka ikaba yashyirwa ku mafaranga 3.000Frw, ubu ahembwa umukozi ufasha umufundi (umuyede – aide maçon) ku munsi. [29] Hashingiwe rero ku mubare wa SMIG umaze kugenwa haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga indishyi z‟ibangamira ku muco abavandimwe batatu ba nyakwigendera bagomba guhabwa zabarwa mu buryo bukurikira hashingiwe kuri formule iteganywa mu ngingo ya 23 y‟Iteka rya Perezida N°31/01 ryo ku wa 25/08/2003, ryavuzwe haruguru ku byerekeye indishyi zihabwa umuntu wapfushije umuvandimwe we mu mpanuka yo mu muhanda: 0.5 x SMIG ya 3000Frw x iminsi 30 y‟akazi mu kwezi x amezi 12 x abavandimwe 3: 1.620.000Frw, bivuze rero ko buri wese agenewe 540.000Frw y‟indishyi z‟ibangamirwa ku muco. c. Ku birebana n’indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka zatanzwe ku rwego rwa mbere. [30] Me Mukanzigiye Donatille uburanira SORAS AG Ltd avuga ko Umucamanza yatanze 500.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka, yirengagiza ko ubujurire bwayo aribwo bwari bufite ishingiro. [31] Me Nzayisenga Charles uburanira Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, avuga ko ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe mu Rukiko Rukuru, bwari bushingiye ku ngingo zifatika zijyanye n‟amakosa agaragara SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 73

Page 101

yari yakozwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge (kwibagirwa gukuba n‟amezi 12 mu mibare yakoreshejwe), no ku kababaro abaregeraga indishyi bari bakomeje guterwa na SORAS yari ikomeje kwinangira kubaha indishyi zikomoka ku mpanuka yahitanye umuvandimwe wabo. Avuga ko kubagukuba n‟umubare 12 bitarakozwe ryari ikosa rikomeye batari kwihanganira, ariyo mpamvubabijuririye kandi ko indishyi baciwe atariho zishingiye, ko ahubwo hari ibindi byagendeweho hakurikijwe uko Urukiko rubibona.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [32] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rwari rwasuzumye ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi bwatanzwe na Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, ku bijyanye n‟indishyi ku ibangamira ku muco, rukemeza ko bufite ishingiro, nta mpamvu rutari kubagenera amafaranga y‟ikurikiranarubanza n‟igihembo cya Avoka, bityo iyi ngingo y‟ubujurire ya SORAS AG Ltd ikaba nta shingiro ifite. d. Ku byerekeye indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego. [33] Me Nzayisenga Charles uburanira Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques, yatanze ubujurire bwuririye ku bundi avuga ko kuba SORAS AG Ltd ikomeje gusiragiza abo ahagarariye mu manza, yabaha 1.000.000Frw y‟indishyi z‟akababaro na 1.000.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka yiyongera kuyo yategetswe n‟Urukiko Rukuru. [34] Uhagarariye SORAS AG Ltd avuga ko indishyi abaregwa basaba ntazo bahabwa, ko ahubwo asaba ko urubanza rwahinduka ku birebana n‟indishyi mbangamirabukungu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74

Page 102

n‟iz‟ibangamira ku muco, SORAS igahabwa 500.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza na 500.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka, igasubizwa 75.000 yatanzeho igarama mu Rukiko Rukuru na 100.000Frw muRukiko rw‟Ikirenga. [35] Ku birebana n‟ayo mafaranga SORAS AG Ltd isaba gusubizwa, Me Nzayisenga Charles avuga ko ntayo ikwiriye guhabwa, kubera ko ari yo yatumye imanza zibaho, ko iyo itanga indishyi ku neza no mu bwumvikane nk‟uko Iteka rya Perezida rubiteganya, bitari ngombwa kwiyambaza Inkiko ngo hashyirweho n‟umwunganizi.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [36] Urukiko rurasanga muri uru rubanza nta muburanyi ukwiye guhabwa indishyi z‟ikurikiranarubanza ndetse n‟amafaranga y‟igihembo cya Avoka kuri uru rwego, kubera ko buri ruhande rufite ibyo rutsindiye n‟ibyo rutsindiwe. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [37] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa SORAS AG Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. [38] Rwemeje ko nta ndishyi mbangamirabukungu Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie naNiyoyita Jacques bakwiye guhabwa. [39] Rutegetse SORAS AG Ltd guha Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie na Niyoyita Jacques indishyi z‟ibangamirwa ku muco zingana na 1.620.000Frw, ni ukuvuga 540.000Frw kuri buri wese, hiyongeyeho 800.000Frw y‟ikurikiranarubanza SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA N’ABANDI 75

Page 103

n‟igihembo cya Avoka bagenewe mu nkiko ebyiri zabanje, yose hamwe akaba 2.420.000Frw. [40] Ruvuze ko imikirize y‟urubanza RCA0089/14/HC/KIG, rwaciwe ku wa 28/11/2014 n‟Urukiko Rukuru ku cyicaro cyarwo i Kigali ihindutse. [41] Rutegetse ko amafaranga y‟ingwate y‟amagarama yatanzwe na SORAS AG Ltd, ahwanye n‟ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76

Page 104

URUBANZA RW’UBUCURUZI

Page 106

RRA v. RUHANDO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RCOMA0122/12/CS (Rugege, P.J., Mukandamage na Ngagi, J.) 22 Mata 2016] Amategeko agenga umusoro – Isoresha nta nteguza – Inyandiko ziherekeza imenyekanisha – Isoresha nta nteguza rikorwa iyo imenyesha ry‟umusoro ritaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa ziteganywa n„amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 28(4) – Amabwiriza ya Komoseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟amahoro No001/2007 yo kuwa 15/06/2007 ashyira mu bikorwa Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku nyungu, ingingo ya 2. Amategeko agenga umusoro – Igipimo kigenderwaho iyo habayeho isoresha nta nteguza – Iyo habaye isoresha nta nteguza, hakoreshwa igipimo giteganywa n‟Itegeko mu kubara umusoro mu buryo bucishirije – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 29, Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo 11. Amategeko agenga Umusoro – Igihe cyagenwe cyo gusoresha – Kuba Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyari gifite uburenganzira bwo gukosora inyandiko y‟imenyesha ry‟umusoro ariko ntikibikore mu gihe cyagenwe n„amategeko ubwo burenganzira burazima – Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo ya 26 n‟iya 27. 79

Page 107

Incamake y’ikibazo: RRA yakoreye Ruhando igenzura, imusoresha nta nteguza umusoro ku nyungu wo mu mwaka wa 2008 n‟uwa 2010 ku mpamvu yuko atometse urutonde rwabo abereyemo imyenda ku imenyekanisha yakoze. Yanamuciye nanone umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ku mwaka wa 2008 hamwe n‟inyungu z‟ubukererwe. Ruhando ntiyishimiye ibyavuye muri iryo genzura maze atakambira Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro asaba kuvanirwaho iyo misoro. Nyuma aza kumenyeshwa ko itakamba rye rifite ishingiro gusa ku ngingo ijyanye n‟igihombo gikomoka ku mwaka wa 2007. Ruhando yajuriye mu Rukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi, rwemeza ko ikirego cye gifite ishingiro, maze rutegeka ko umusoro ku nyungu urebana n‟umwaka wa 2008 n‟uwa 2010 uvanyweho kandi rwemeza ko umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wishyuwe ku kiranguzo ku mwaka wa 2008 uhwanye na 73.131.312Frw aho kuba 56.623.239Frw ndetse rutegeka RRA kwishyura Ruhando igihembo cya Avoka. RRA yajuriye mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwemeje ko isoresha nta nteguza ryakozwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko nyamara rwirengagije ko ubuyobozi bw‟imisoro bufite uburenganzira bwo gusoresha nta nteguza iyo imenyekanisha ry‟umusoro ryakozwe n‟umusoreshwa ridaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa zirimo n‟urutonde rw‟abo abereyemo imyenda n‟abayimubereyemo nk‟uko biteganywa n‟itegeko. Ruhando we yisobanura yemera ko n‟ubwo itegeko riteganya ko hari inyandiko zigomba guherekeza imenyekanisha ry‟umusoro ariko ntiriteganya izo ari zo ndetse n‟umuntu ufite ububasha bwo kuzigena, bityo ko Komiseri yihaye ububasha ashyiraho amabwiriza arebana n‟urutonde atari ngombwa akaba asaba urukiko kubikosora. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80

Page 108

Indi mpamvu y‟ubujurire ya RRA ni uko urukiko rwemeje ko umusoro waciwe Ruhando hagendewe ku gipimo cya 4% cy‟ibyacurujwe mu mwaka binyuranyije n‟amategeko nyamara rwirengagije ko iyo habaye isoresha nta nteguza bidashoboka kujya munsi y‟umusoro ucibwa hakoreshejwe inyungu zicishirije nk‟uko biteganywa n‟amategeko. Ruhando yiregura avuga ko usoreshwa nta nteguza ari uba agomba gusora nyamara we akaba atagomba gusora kuko ari mu gihombo. Indi mpamvu y‟ubujurire ya RRA ni uko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ko umusoro ku nyongeragaciro watanzwe na Ruhando utari ukwiye kubarwa nk‟uwishyuwe rushingiye ku kuba itari ifite uburenganzira bwo kuwugenzura kuko igihe cyo gukora igenzura cyari cyarazimye. Ruhando we yiregura avuga yuko iyo umusoreshwa akoze imenyekanisha, umusoresha ntakore igenzura mu gihe giteganywa n„amategeko, ibyakozwe n‟umusoreshwa biba ndakuka. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Isoresha nta nteguza rikorwa iyo imenyesha ry‟umusoro ritaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa ziteganywa n„amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro. Bityo, kugena umusoro ku nyungu hakoreshejwe isoresha nta nteguza byakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko.

2. Iyo habaye isoresha nta nteguza, hakoreshwa igipimo giteganywa n‟Itegeko mu kubara umusoro mu buryo bucishirije. Bityo kuba umusoreshwa yaraciwe umusoro ubariwe ku gipimo cya 4% cy‟ibyacurujwe mu mwaka ntibinyuranyije n‟amategeko.

3. Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro gifite uburenganzira bwo gukosora inyandiko y‟imenyesha ry‟umusoro ariko iyo kitabikoze mu gihe cyagenwe n‟amategeko ubwo burenganzira RRA v. RUHANDO 81

Page 109

burazima. Bityo, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wishyuwe na Ruhando ku mwaka wa 2008 ugomba guhabwa agaciro. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Uregwa ategetswe gusubiza uwareze igice (½) cy’amagarama yari yatanze. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo kuwa 04/06/2003 nk‟uko ryari ryaravuguruwe kuwa 13/08/2008, ingingo ya 201(1) n‟icya (2). Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, ingingo za 26, 27, 28(4) n‟iya 29. Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 11. Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro No001/2007 yo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku nyungu, ingingo ya 2. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Kuwa 02/01/2012, Ruhando Ernest yashyikirijwe inyandiko isoza igenzura yakorewe ry‟umusoro ku nyungu, n‟umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, aho yaciwe imisoro ingana na 162.068.634Frw yerekeranye n‟imyaka ya 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 na 2010. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82

Page 110

[2] Ruhando Ernest ntiyishimiye ibyavuye muri iryo genzura, maze kuwa 08/02/2012 ajuririra Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro, nawe amusubiza kuwa 30/03/2012 amumenyesha ko itakamba rifite ishingiro ku ngingo ijyanye n‟igihombo gikomoka ku mwaka wa 2007, bityo ku musoro yari yaciwe ungana na 162.068.634Frw avanirwaho ungana na 11.240.413Frw, hasigara 150.828.221Frw ajyanye n‟umusoro ku nyungu ku myaka ya 2008 (ungana na 62.583.302Frw) na 2010 (ungana na 66.628.196Frw) hamwe n‟umusoro ku nyongeragaciro w‟imyaka ya 2008 (ungana na 12.701.584Frw) na 2009 (ungana na 8.915.139Frw), naho inyungu z‟ubukererwe zikazabarwa ku munsi wo kwishyura. Ku bijyanye n‟umusoro ku nyongeragaciro w‟umwaka wa 2008, Komiseri Mukuru yavuze ko umusoro wemewe ko wishyuwe ungana na 56.623.239Frw aho kuba 73.131.312Frw. [3] Ruhando Ernest ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, aregera Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi. Mu rubanza RCOM0095/12/HCC rwaciwe kuwa 15/06/2012, urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cye gifite ishingiro, rutegeka ko umusoro ku nyungu wa 2008 ungana na 62.583.302Frw n‟uwa 2010 ungana na 66.628.196Frw uvanyweho, ndetse ruvuga ko umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wishyuwe ku kiranguzo (Input VAT) ku mwaka wa 2008 uhwanye na 73.131.312Frw aho kuba 56.623.239Frw. Rwategetse Ikigo cy‟Igihugu cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro kwishyura Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) 500.000Frw y‟igihembo cya Avoka. [4] Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro (RRA) nticyishimiye icyo cyemezo, kikijuririra mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga kivuga ko: a) Ku bijyanye n‟umusoro ku nyungu wo mu mwaka wa 2008 na 2010 wagenwe hakoreshejwe isoresha nta nteguza: RRA v. RUHANDO 83

Page 111

Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko RRA ibishatse, urutonde rw‟ababerewemo imyenda rushobora kugaragazwa nyuma y‟itariki y‟imenyekanisha ry‟umusoro, nyamara ntirugaragaze amategeko yagenderwaho, kuko iyo hamaze kuba imenyekanisha ryakozwe n‟umusoreshwa, igihe cyose igenzura ritarakorwa, ntaho cyahurira n‟umusoreshwa kimusaba kugaragaza inyandiko izi n‟izi; N‟ubwo Umucamanza avuga ko urutonde rwagaragazwa nyuma y‟imenyekanisha, ibyo atari byo biteganywa n‟amategeko kubera ko igihe cy‟imenyekanisha ry‟umusoro ku nyungu urwo rutonde ruba ari umugereka, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 28, 40, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha nk‟uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, n‟ibiteganywa n‟ingingo ya 2 y‟Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru No001/2007 yo kuwa 15/06/2007 ashyira mu bikorwa Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro nk‟uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu; Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwashatse kumvikanisha ko kitemerewe gusoresha nta nteguza igihe cyose kitagaragaza ko ikosa ryakozwe ryatumye kigira igihombo (préjudice), ariko ko rutagaragaza amategeko abiteganya, kandi ko yirengagije ko gusoresha nta nteguza ari bumwe mu buryo bukoreshwa mu gusoresha; ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 84

Page 112

b) Ku bijyanye n‟umusoro ku nyungu wabariwe ku gipimo cya 4%, Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwirengagije: Ingingo ya 29, igika cya 3, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umusoro utangwa iyo habaye isoreshwa nta nteguza udashobora kuba munsi y‟umusoro wari gutangwa hakoreshejwe uburyo bwo gusoresha inyungu zicishirije; Ingingo ya 11 y‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko umusoro ucishirije ungana na 4% y‟ibyacurujwe mu mwaka utangwa na ba nyir‟ibikorwa biciriritse; c) Ku bijyanye n‟umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) w‟umwaka wa 2008, Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko gikwiriye kwemera umusoro wose wishyuwe ku kiranguzo mu mwaka wa 2008 ungana na 73.131.312Frw, ariko ko rwirengagije ko umusoro cyemera ari ujyanye n‟amezi cyagenzuye ari yo kuva mu kwezi kwa Gicurasi kugeza mu kwezi k‟Ukuboza 2008. d) Ku bijyanye n‟indishyi, kitategekwa kwishyura igihembo cya Avoka kingana na 500.000Frw mu gihe bigaragara ko ikirego cya Ruhando Ernest nta shingiro gifite (Accessorium sequitur principale). [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 22/03/2016, Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro gihagarariwe na Me Mugire Joseph, naho Ruhando Ernest ahagarariwe na Me Nsengiyumva Abel. RRA v. RUHANDO 85

Page 113

II. IBIBAZO BIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba kugena umusoro ku nyungu wo mu myaka ya 2008 na 2010 hakoreshejwe isoresha nta nteguza, byarakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [6] Me Mugire Joseph avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko isoresha nta nteguza ryakozwe mu buryo budakurikije amategeko, ariko ko rwirengagije ko RRA yakoze iryo soresha ishingiye ku ngingo ya 28, agace ka kane, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha iteganya ko Ubuyobozi bw‟Imisoro bufite uburenganzira bwo gusoresha nta nteguza iyo imenyesha ry‟umusoro ritaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa, ko Ruhando Ernest atari yaragaragaje urutonde rw‟abo abereyemo imyenda nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 2 y‟amabwiriza No001/2007 yo kuwa 15/06/2007 ashyira mu bikorwa Itegeko No 16/2008 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku nyungu (ku musaruro). Avuga ko impamvu Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro gisaba urutonde rw‟ababerewemo imyenda ari ukugira ngo hagaragare ishusho nyakuri y‟umutungo kuko imyenda igabanya inyungu zisoreshwa, kandi ko bishoboka ko umusoreshwa yakwiyitirira imyenda itariho. [7] Me Nsengiyumva Abel, uburanira Ruhando Ernest, avuga ko ingingo ya 28, agace ka kane, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, iteganya ko hari inyandiko za ngombwa ziherekeza imenyesha ry‟umusoro, ariko ko idateganya izo ari zo ndetse n‟umuntu ufite ububasha bwo kuzivuga, ko icyarebwa ari ukumenya inyandiko ya ngombwa iyo ari yo n‟icyo yafasha mu isoresha. Avuga ko, mu kumenya icyo iyo nyandiko yafasha, harebwa ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86

Page 114

uburyo umusoro ku nyungu ubarwa, ko ingingo ya 16 y‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro iteganya ko inyungu ari ikinyuranyo hagati y‟ibyinjiye n‟ibyasohotse, naho ingingo ya 21 y‟iryo Tegeko igateganya ibisabwa kugira ngo ikintu cyemerwe ko cyasohotse. Akomeza avuga ko ikindi kigaragaza ko urwo rutonde atari ngombwa ari uko mu igenzura ry‟imyaka ya 2006 na 2007 urwo rutonde rutari ruhari kandi ko igenzura ryakozwe rikarangira, ko mu mwaka wa 2008 Ruhando Ernest yakoze imenyekanisha, rirakirwa, ntiyabwirwa ko hari ibiburaho cyangwa ko rituzuye. Avuga ko, mu gushyiraho amabwiriza, Komiseri Mukuru yihaye ububasha kuko itegeko ritabiteganya, kandi ko n‟iyo yaba afite ububasha, urwo rutonde atari ngombwa, bityo ko niba yarashyizeho ibintu bitari ngombwa, urukiko rwabikosora, ko urutonde ubwarwo rutagabanya inyungu ahubwo ko rugaragaza amazina y‟abantu baberewemo imyenda, naho inyungu zikagaragara muri “comptabilité”.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [8] Ingingo ya 28, agace ka kane, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha nk‟uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko: “Ubuyobozi bw‟Imisoro bufite uburenganzira bwo gusoresha nta nteguza mu gihe, […] 40 imenyesha ry‟umusoro ritaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa; […]”. [9] Ingingo ya 2 y‟Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru No001/2007 yo kuwa 15/06/2007 ashyira mu bikorwa Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku RRA v. RUHANDO 87

Page 115

nyungu1, iteganya ko: “Umusoreshwa ufite igicuruzo rusange kingana cyangwa kirenze miliyoni makumyabiri (20.000.000Frw) mu mwaka agomba komeka ku imenyekanisha rye impapuro zikurikira: 1. Ishusho y‟umutungo; 2. Ishusho y‟inyungu cyangwa igihombo; 3. Ishusho y‟ubwicungure; 4. Urutonde rw‟abamubereyemo umwenda; 5. Urutonde rw‟abo abereyemo imyenda”. [10] Muri uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko Ruhando Ernest yakorewe isoresha nta nteguza ry‟umusoro ku nyungu w‟imyaka ya 2008 na 2010 kubera ko, mu imenyekanisha ry‟iyo misoro, atigeze yomekaho urutonde rw‟abo abereyemo imyenda, Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro kikaba kivuga ko urwo rutonde ari inyandiko ya ngombwa igomba guherekeza imenyekanisha ry‟umusoro, mu gihe Ruhando Ernest we yemeza ko urwo rutonde atari inyandiko ya ngombwa kuko imyenda abereyemo abandi bantu iba igaragara muri “Bilan” yaherekeje imenyekanisha, ku buryo urwo rutonde rwatangwa na nyuma mu gihe Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro kirukeneye, iyi myumvire ya Ruhando Ernest ikaba ari yo yahawe ireme n‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi. [11] Urukiko rurasanga, nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 28, agace ka kane, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, ihame ari uko isoresha nta nteguza rikorwa iyo imenyesha ry‟umusoro ritaherekejwe n‟inyandiko zose za ngombwa, izo nyandiko zikaba zarasobanuwe mu ngingo ya 2 y‟Amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru No001/2007 yavuzwe haruguru, hakaba harashyizwemo n‟urutonde rw‟abo umusoreshwa abereyemo

1Aya mabwiriza yasohotse mu Igazeti ya Leta ya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda, No12 yo kuwa 15/06/2007.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88

Page 116

imyenda mu gihe uwo musoreshwa afite igicuruzo rusange kingana na cyangwa kirenze 20.000.000Frw mu mwaka. [12] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Amabwirizaya ya Komiseri Mukuru No001/2007 yavuzwe haruguru yaratangajwe mu Igazeti ya Leta2, nta mpamvu n‟imwe yatuma atubahirizwa kuko ntaho anyuranyije n‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku nyungu, ibi bikaba byumvikanisha ko Ruhando Ernest yagombaga kubahiriza ingingo ya 2 y‟ayo mabwiriza, yomeka ku imenyekanisha ry‟umusoro urutonde rw‟abo yari abereyemo imyenda. Kuba amabwiriza ya Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro yavuzwe haruguru, ateganya ko umusoreshwa agomba kujya atanga urutonde rw‟abo abereyemo imyenda, ntibyafatwa nko kurengera ububasha Komiseri Mukuru yahawe (abuse of power) nk‟uko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwabibonye, kuko ari we ushinzwe imicungire ya buri munsi y‟icyo kigo3, cyane cyane ko n‟ishingiro ry‟urwo rutonde ryumvikana kuko, mu gihe cy‟igenzura, rufasha mu kumenya niba koko abo bantu baberewemo imyenda babaho, bityo ibyo

2Ingingo ya 201, igika cya 1 n‟icya 2, y‟Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y‟u Rwanda ryo ku wa 04/06/2003 nk‟uko ryari ryaravuguruwe ku wa 13/08/2008, ryakurikizwaga igihe isoresha nta nteguza ryakorwaga, yateganyaga ko: “Amategeko, amateka n‟andi mabwiriza rusange areba rubanda ntibishobora gutangira gukurikizwa bitabanje gutangazwa mu buryo buteganywa n‟amategeko.Ntawe ushobora kwitwaza ko atazi itegeko iyo ryatangajwe mu buryo buteganywa n‟amategeko […]”. 3 Ingingo ya 21, igika cya 1, y‟Itegeko No08/2009 ryo ku wa 27/04/2009 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟inshingano by‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro, iteganya ko: “Imicungire ya buri munsi ya RRA ishinzwe Komiseri Mukuru. Afite ububasha bwo guhuza no kuyobora ibikorwa bya buri munsi bya RRA kandi akabazwa n’Inama y’Ubuyobozi uko ibyemezo byayo bishyirwa mu bikorwa[…]”. RRA v. RUHANDO 89

Page 117

bigakuraho impungenge z‟uko umusoro wanyerezwa kuko iyo myenda igabanya inyungu zisoreshwa nk‟uko byasobanuwe n‟uburanira Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro. [13] Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, kugena umusoro ku nyungu wo mu mwaka wa 2008 na 2010 hakoreshejwe isoresha nta nteguza, byarakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko, bityo imikirize y‟urubanza RCOMA0095/12/HCC kuri iyo ngingo ikaba igomba guhinduka. b. Kumenya niba Ruhando Ernest akwiye gucibwa umusoro ubariwe ku gipimo cya 4% cy’ibyacurujwe. [14] Me Mugire Joseph, uburanira Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro, avuga ko nyuma y‟aho Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rugaragarije ko isoresha nta nteguza rinyuranyije n‟amategeko, rwavuze ko umusoro waciwe Ruhando Ernest hagendewe ku gipimo cya 4% ritubahirije amategeko, ariko ko rwirengagije ko Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyagaragaje ko gusoresha ku gipimo cya 4% byemewe n‟amategeko, ko ingingo ya 29 y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha iteganya ko umusoro utangwa iyo habaye isoreshwa nta nteguza udashobora kujya munsi y‟umusoro ucibwa hakoreshejwe inyungu zicishirije ziteganywa n‟ingingo ya 11 y‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro ivuga ko umusoro ucishirije ungana na 4% y‟ibyacurujwe ku mwaka. [15] Me Nsengiyumva Abel, uburanira Ruhando Ernest, avuga ko Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro gishingira umusoro wa 4% ku ngingo ya 29 y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, ariko ko iyo ngingo itubahirijwe kuko iyo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90

Page 118

usoreshejwe nta nteguza umusoro utagomba kujya hasi ya 4% acibwa hagendewe ku nyungu zicishirije, ko ibyo byumvikanisha ko usoreshwa nta nteguza ari uwagombaga gutanga umusoro, ariko ko Ruhando Ernest ari mu gihombo, bityo akaba ataragombaga gusora, keretse niba umusoro wa 4% ari igihano, mu gihe nyamara mu mategeko y‟isoresha icyo gihano kitabamo. Avuga ko mu gika cya 3 cy‟ingingo ya 29 imaze kuvugwa haruguru hagaragaramo amagambo “umusoro wari gutangwa hakoreshejwe uburyo bwo gusoresha inyungu zicishirije”, ariko ko mu mategeko y‟imisoro ntahagaragara “inyungu ziciriritse”, ahubwo ko harimo “ibikorwa biciriritse” bigaragara mu ngingo ya 2, agace ka 6, y‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro. Asoza avuga ko hari urubanza RCOMA0009/11/CS rwaciwe kuwa 07/03/2014 n‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, haburana RRA na Mukagihana Emerthe, rwakemuye ikibazo nk‟icyo Ruhando Ernest afite, bityo ko rwashingirwaho mu gufata icyemezo.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [16] Ingingo ya 29, igika cya gatatu, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, iteganya ko: “[…] Umusoro utangwa iyo habaye isoresha nta nteguza ntushobora kuba munsi y‟umusoro wari gutangwa hakoreshejwe uburyo bwo gusoresha inyungu zicishirije4. […]”.

4In case of an assessment without notice, the amount of taxes cannot be less than the taxes which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime(Le montant de l‟impôt établi en cas d‟imposition d‟office ne peut être inférieur à celui qui aurait été payé si le contribuable était placé sous le régime de l‟imposition forfaitaire).

RRA v. RUHANDO 91

Page 119

[17] Ingingo ya 11, igika cya nyuma, y‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, iteganya ko: “[…]. Umusoro ucishirije, ungana n‟ane ku ijana (4%) y‟ibyacurujwe mu mwaka, utangwa na ba nyir‟ibikorwa biciriritse5”. [18] Dosiye y‟uru rubanza igaragaza ko, nyuma y‟uko Ruhando Ernest akorewe isoresha nta nteguza ry‟umusoro ku nyungu w‟imyaka ya 2008 na 2010, Komiseri Mukuru, mu gisubizo ku itakamba, yemeje ko Ruhando Ernest agomba kwishyura umusoro ku nyungu w‟umwaka wa 2008 ungana na 62.583.302Frw6 ahwanye na 4% y‟ibyacurujwe muri uwo mwaka bingana na 977.864.092Frw (Annual turnover rectified), n‟umusoro ku nyungu w‟umwaka wa 2010 ungana na 66.628.196Frw7 ahwanye na 4% y‟ibyacurujwe muri uwo mwaka bingana na 1.041.065.567Frw (Annual turnover declared). Ikindi na none, ni uko igipimo kingana na 4% cyakoreshejwe giteganywa n‟ingingo ya 11, igika cya nyuma, y‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru. [19] Urukiko rurasanga, nyuma y‟isesengura ry‟ingingo z‟amategeko zivuzwe haruguru, umushingamategeko yarateganyije ko nyir‟igikorwa giciriritse ari we utanga umusoro ucishirije ungana na 4% y‟ibyacurujwe mu mwaka, bisobanuye

5 Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover (Un taux d‟imposition forfaitaire de quatre pour cent (4 %) est applicable au chiffre d‟affaires annuel des petites entreprises). 6 62.583.302 Frw agizwe na 39.114.564 Frw y‟umusoro fatizo + 3.911.456 Frw y‟amahazabu y‟ubukererwe + 19.557.282 Frw y‟ibihano byo kutubya umusoro. 7 66.628.196 Frw agizwe na 41.642.623 Frw y‟umusoro fatizo + 4.164.262 Frw y‟amahazabu y‟ubukererwe + 20.821.311 Frw y‟ibihano byo gutubya umusoro. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92

Page 120

ko mu mwanya wo kubara inyungu nyayo, umusoro ubarwa mu buryo bucishirije (imposition forfaitaire). Niba rero ingingo ya 29, igika cya gatatu, y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko iyo habaye isoresha nta nteguza, umusoro udashobora kujya munsi y‟umusoro wari gutangwa hakoreshejwe uburyo bwo gusoresha inyungu zicishirije (imposition forfaitaire), ibyo byumvikanisha ko Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro nta bundi buryo cyari gukoresha mu kugena uwo musoro, uretse gukoresha igipimo cya 4% cyavuzwe haruguru, kuko nta kindi gipimo cyigeze giteganywa n‟Itegeko No16/2005 ryo kuwa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro8 [20] Ku byerekeranye no kuba Ruhando Ernest avuga ko atagomba gutanga umusoro ku nyungu mu myaka yavuzwe haruguru kuko yari mu gihombo, Urukiko rurasanga, nk‟uko byemejwe mu nyandiko isubiza itakamba yanditswe na Komiseri Mukuru w‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro, Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) yarahanaguweho umusoro ungana na 11.240.413Frw ndetse yemererwa igihombo kingana na 202.021.082Frw mu mwaka wa 2009 mu mwanya wa “Payment position”, uyu mwanzuro ukaba warafashwe nyuma yo gusanga itakamba rye rifite ishingiro ku ngingo ijyanye n‟igihombo gikomoka ku mwaka wa 2007 kitari cyarimuriwe mu mwaka wa 2009. Ni kuri iyo mpamvu rero Ruhando Ernest atagomba kongera kwitwaza icyo gihombo kugira ngo avuge ko atagomba gutanga umusoro ku nyungu w‟imyaka ya 2008 na 2010 waciwe hakoreshejwe uburyo bw‟isoresha nta nteguza, kandi icyo gihombo cyarimuriwe mu mwaka wa 2009.

8 Iri Tegeko ni ryo rikoreshwa mu kugena umusoro utaziguye ku musaruro (cyangwa ku nyungu). RRA v. RUHANDO 93

Page 121

[21] Hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanura haruguru, Urukiko rurasanga kuba Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) yaraciwe umusoro ubariwe ku gipimo cya 4% cy‟ibyacurujwe hakoreshejwe uburyo bw‟isoresha nta nteguza, ntaho binyuranyije n‟amategeko, bityo ko icyemezo cy‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi kivanaho umusoro ku nyungu w‟umwaka wa 2008 ungana na 62.583.302Frw n‟uw‟umwaka wa 2010 ungana na 66.628.196Frw, kigomba guhinduka. c. Kumenya niba umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ungana na 16.508.073Frw y’umwaka wa 2008 udakwiye kubarwa nk’uwishyuwe hashingiwe ko igihe cyo kuwukorera igenzura cyashaje. [22] Me Mugire Joseph, uburanira Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro (RRA), avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwirengagije ko mu mwaka wa 2008 Ruhando Ernest yemerewe ko yatanze umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ungana na 56.623.239Frw, akaba yarangiwe 16.508.703Frw yo kuva mu kwezi kwa mbere kugeza mu kwezi kwa kane 2008 kubera ko Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyamubwiye ko kitakwemera umusoro kidafitiye uburenganzira bwo kugenzura kuko igenzura ryari ryarashaje, rwemeza ko umusoro ku nyongeragaciro watanzwe na Ruhando Ernest ungana na 73.131.312Frw. Avuga ko igenzura rikorwa mu myaka itatu (3) kandi ko icyo gihe kiri “opposable” kuri RRA n‟umusoreshwa kuko ku ruhande rwa RRA kwemera ibyo umusoresha avuga byayigiraho ingaruka, bityo ko asanga byagombye kugira ingaruka ku mpande zombi. [23] Me Nsengiyumva Abel, uburanira Ruhando Ernest, avuga ko, ku bijyanye na TVA, umusoreshwa akora imenyekanisha, Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyaramuka kitaje ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94

Page 122

kugenzura, ibyakozwe n‟umusoreshwa bikaba ndakuka, bityo bigafatwa nk‟ukuri.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [24] Ingingo ya 26 y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, iteganya ko: “Iyo Ubuyobozi bw‟Imisoro busanze hari umusoro wabazwe nabi, utarabazwe, wagaragajwe nabi, watubijwe cyangwa irindi kosa mu nyandiko y‟imenyesha ry‟umusoro cyangwa mu igenzura, bufite uburenganzira bwo kubikosora”. [25] Ingingo ya 27 y‟Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y‟isoresha, nk‟uko yari yarahinduwe kandi yarujujwe n‟ingingo ya 3 y‟Itegeko No74/2008 ryo ku wa 31/12/2008, yateganyaga ko: “Iyo habayeho gukosora inyandiko igena umusoro, Ubuyobozi bw‟Imisoro bwoherereza umusoreshwa inyandiko ikosora. Iyo nyandiko iba ikubiyemo umushinga w'inyandiko ikosora n‟ibindi bintu byose byashingiweho kugira ngo ikosorwa rikorwe. Inyandiko ikosora igaragaramo amahazabu agenwa n‟Ubuyobozi bw‟Imisoro iyo habayeho kutubahiriza amategeko agena imitunganyirize y‟imisoro. […]. Inyandiko ikosora ishobora gutangwa mu gihe cy‟imyaka itatu (3) uhereye ku munsi w‟iyakirwa ry‟imenyeshamusoro. Inyandiko ikosora igomba kuba yakozwe nibura ku munsi wa nyuma w‟icyo gihe cy‟imyaka itatu (3). Ubusaze buvugwa muri iki gika buhagarikwa n'inyandiko imenyesha umusoreshwa igihe azagenzurirwa, inyandikomvugo y'icyaha, inyandiko y'umusoreshwa yemera umusoro n'ibindi bikorwa byose biteganywa n'amategeko asanzwe. […]”. RRA v. RUHANDO 95

Page 123

[26] Muri uru rubanza, dosiye igaragaza ko Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyemera ko Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) yamenyekanishije ko yishyuye TVA ingana na 73.131.312Frw, ariko ko abagenzuzi bamwemereye TVA ingana na 56.623.239Frw bitewe n‟uko amezi yo kuva muri Mutarama kugeza muri Mata 2008 yashaje ku buryo kuyagenzura bitashobokaga, bityo ko TVA ingana na 16.508.073Frw ijyanye n‟ayo mezi idakwiye kwemerwa. [27] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro cyari gifite uburenganzira bwo gukosora inyandiko y‟imenyesha ry‟umusoro, kikabikora mu gihe cy‟imyaka itatu (3) nk‟uko biteganywa mu ngingo ya 27 yavuzwe haruguru, ibyo byumvikanisha ko kigomba kwirengera ingaruka zo kuba kitarabikoze, cyemera nta kuzuyaza ibyakozwe n‟umusoreshwa mu gihe cy‟imenyesha ry‟umusoro. Ni kuri iyo mpamvu icyo kigo kigomba kwemera TVA yose Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) yishyuye ku kiranguzo mu mwaka wa 2008 ingana na 73.131.312Frw. [28] Urukiko rurasanga, hakurikijwe ibimaze gusobanurwa haruguru, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ungana na 16.508.073Frw y‟umwaka wa 2008 ukwiye kubarwa nk‟uwishyuwe na Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) kuko kuba igenzura rya TVA ry‟umwaka wa 2008 ritarakozwe, bitaturutse ku makosa ye, bityo ko icyemezo cy‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi cyemeza ko TVA yishyuwe ku kiranguzo (Input VAT) ku mwaka wa 2008 ingana na 73.131.312Frw kitagomba guhinduka.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96

Page 124

d. Kumenya niba Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro cyari gikwiye gucibwa indishyi. [29] Me Mugire Joseph avuga ko icyo kigo kitagomba gucibwa indishyi zingana na 500.000Frw kuko ibyo cyakoze biteganywa n‟amategeko, bityo ko zakurwaho. [30] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko nta makosa umucamanza wa mbere yakoze kuko Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro ari cyo cyashoye Ruhando Ernest mu manza.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [31] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi rwari rwaciye indishyi Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro, nta makosa rwakoze kuko rwari rwasanze ari cyo cyatumye Ruhando Ernest ajya mu manza, bityo akagira ibyo atakaza yishyura Avoka. [32] Urukiko rurasanga ariko, kuri uru rwego rw‟ubujurire, icyemezo cyo guca indishyi kigomba kuvanwaho kuko byagaragaye ko isoresha nta nteguza ryakorewe Ruhando Ernest rikurikije amategeko, nk‟uko byasobanuwe haruguru, bityo Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro kikaba cyari gifite ukuri kuri iyi ngingo. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [33] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bw‟Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. RRA v. RUHANDO 97

Page 125

[34] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCOMA0095/12/HCC rwaciwe kuwa 15/06/2012 n‟Urukiko Rukuru rw‟Ubucuruzi ruhindutse gusa ku bijyanye n‟umusoro ku nyungu no ku ndishyi. [35] Rwemeje ko kugena umusoro ku nyungu wo mu mwaka wa 2008 ungana na 62.583.302Frw n‟uw‟umwaka wa 2010 ungana na 66.628.196Frw, hakoreshejwe isoresha nta nteguza ku gipimo cya 4% cy‟ibyacurujwe, byakozwe mu buryo bukurikije amategeko. [36] Rutegetse ko indishyi z‟igihembo cya Avoka zingana na 500.000Frw zari zaraciwe Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro zivanyweho. [37] Rutegetse Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) gusubiza Ikigo cy‟Imisoro n‟Amahoro 50.000Frw ahwanye na ½ cy‟amagarama kuko cyari cyatanze ingwate ingana na 100.000Frw kandi hakaba hari ingingo z‟ubujurire zifite ishingiro.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

Page 126

IMANZA NSHINJABYAHA

Page 128

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RPAA0006/GEN/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Nyirandabaruta na Karimunda, J.) 17 Ukuboza 2015] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Uburyozwacyaha bw‟umuyobozi – Haba hari uburyozwacyaha mu gihe umuyobozi yarazi cyangwa yashoboraga kumenya ko abo ayoboye bagiye gukora icyaha ntabakumire ndetse na nyuma yo kugikora ntabafatire ibihano. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ishingiro ry‟uburyozwacyaha ku muyobozi – Ntibukomoka ku byaha byakozwe n‟abo ayobora ahubwo aba aryozwa kudashyira mu bikorwa inshingano ze zo kuyobora uko bikwiye. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Umuyobozi uryozwa icyaha – Habaho uburyozwacyaha kabone n‟ubwo abo bayobozi baba batarashyizweho mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ubushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare bwareze ACP Habyarabatuma Cyriaque kuba yari mu bateguye, abayoboye kandi bashyize mu bikorwa jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, aho yafataga kandi agafunga ibyitso by‟inkontanyi mu mwaka wa 1990, agatoza kandi agaha imbunda impunzi z‟Abarundi i Nyaruteja n‟Interahamwe kuri Stade Kamena; bumurega kandi ubufatanyacyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe ahantu hatandukanye, ubwo yirengagije gutabara abantu bari mu kaga bikabaviramo urupfu. Yakurikiranweho kandi kuba yaratanze imbunda zo kwica abatutsi muri Butare na Gikongoro no kuba yarakoresheje Abajandarume yari ashinzwe kuyobora mu kwica Abatutsi muri Butare na Gikongoro. 101

Page 129

Urukiko rwa Gisirikare rwamuhamije icyaha cy‟ubufatanyacyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe Abatutsi bari bahungiye i Cyahinda bishwe n‟Abajandarume yari yohereje, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu no kunyagwa impeta za gisirikare naho ibindi byaha rubimuhanaguraho. Habyarabatuma Cyriaque n‟Ubushinjacyaha bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, naho ubw‟Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y‟umwihariko no kunyagwa impeta za gisirikare. Habyarabatuma ntiyishimiye imikirize y‟urubanza, arujuririra muri uru Rukiko, avuga ko yahaniwe kugira uruhare mu iyicwa ry‟impuzi z‟i Cyahinda kandi atari ahari, no kuba Urukiko rwaramuhamije icyaha rugenekereje ndetse akaba asanga ntacyo yari gukora kuko yari atakiri umuyobozi muri Butare. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko dosiye igaragaraza ko ku wa 19/4/1994 nyuma ya saa sita aribwo Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yamenye ko yimuwe kandi icyo gihe akaba yari ataramenya uzamusimbura kuko nta hererekanya bubasha ryari ryagakozwe kubera ko Major Rusigariye Alfred wagombaga kumusimbura yari atarahagera, ko rero ubuyobozi butasigiwe Sous Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga nk‟uko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque abivuga kuko atari we bari gukorana ihererekanya bubasha. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Haba hari uburyozwacyaha mu gihe umuyobozi yarazi cyangwa yashoboraga kumenya ko abo ayoboye bagiye gukora icyaha ntabakumire ndetse na nyuma yo kugikora ntabafatire ibihano. Bityo, kuba uregwa yarahaye abajandarume imbunda zikomeye batagiye ku rugamba, ntagire n‟icyo ababuza cyerekeranye n‟ubuzima bw‟impunzi yari azi ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

Page 130

buri mu kaga kubera ko yari yahigereye akabona imirambo y‟impunzi zishwe n‟izakomerekejwe n‟Abajandarume, byerekana ko yari azi cyangwa yashoboraga kumenya ko izo mpunzi zishobora kwicwa n‟abo bajandarume, nyamara akaba ntacyo yakoze ngo akumire ubwo bwicanyi butaraba. Kuba kandi uregwa atarabafatiye ibihano ahubwo agategereza ko bahanwa n‟utarabohereje, ntanasabe ko hakorwa iperereza ry‟ubwo bwicanyi kugira ngo ababigizemo uruhare bakurikiranwe, bigaragaza ko yateshutse ku nshingano ze nk‟umuyobozi.

2. Uburyozwacyaha ku muyobozi ntibukomoka ku kuba akurikiranyweho ibyaha byakozwe n‟abo ayobora ahubwo aba aryozwa kudashyira mu bikorwa inshingano ze zo kuyobora uko bikwiye.

3. Ububasha bwo gukumira cyangwa guhana ibyaha busabwa abayobozi ntibugombera byanze bikunze ko uwo muyobozi aba ayobora mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko, kuko mu gihe cy‟amakimbirane, birashoboka ko abayobozi bishyiraho, habaho za Guverinoma zitemewe cyangwa ingabo n‟imitwe yitwara gisirikare yishyizeho. Inzego z‟ubuyobozi zishobora gushyirwaho huti huti, zishobora kuba ziri mu kajagari cyangwa zicyiyubaka. Kugirango icyo gihe amategeko yubahirizwe ni ngombwa ko abayoborwa n‟abayobozi bafataga ibyemezo babazwa ibyo bakoze kabone n‟ubwo abo bayobozi baba batarashyizweho mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare ntiruhindutse. Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 103

Page 131

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko-Ngenga Nº16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/6/2004 rigena imiterere, ububasha n‟imikorere y‟Inkiko-Gacaca, ingingo ya 51. Imanza zifashishijwe: Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva, ICTR (Appeal Judgment), Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, 14 December 2011, para 697. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para 171. Prosecutor v. Mucic et al, ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195. Ibitekerezo by’abahanga: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambride: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p.399. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA. [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rwa Gisirikare, Ubushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare burega ACP Habyarabatuma Cyriaque kuba yari mu bateguye, abayoboye kandi bashyize mu bikorwa jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi, aho yafataga kandi agafunga ibyitso by‟inkontanyi mu mwaka wa 1990, agatoza kandi agaha imbunda impunzi z‟Abarundi i Nyaruteja n‟Interahamwe kuri Stade Kamena; bumurega kandi ubufatanyacyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe ahantu hatandukanye, i Tumba, Kaminuza Nkuru y‟u Rwanda (UNR), ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 104

Page 132

Matyazo, Rukira, Ngoma, Sahera, Kabutare, Nkomero, Kigembe na Kabakobwa, ubwo yirengagije gutabara abantu bari mu kaga bikabaviramo urupfu; yakurikiranweho kandi kuba yaratanze imbunda zo kwica Abatutsi muri Butare na Gikongoro no kuba yarakoresheje Abajandarume yari ashinzwe kuyobora mu kwica Abatutsi muri Butare na Gikongoro. [2] Urukiko rwa Gisirikare rwamuhamije icyaha cy‟ubufatanyacyaha mu bwicanyi bwakorewe Abatutsi bari bahungiye i Cyahinda bishwe n‟Abajandarume yari yohereje, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu no kunyagwa impeta za gisirikare naho ibindi byaha rubimuhanaguraho. [3] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque n‟Ubushinjacyaha bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite, naho ubw‟Ubushinjacyaha bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rumuhanisha igifungo cya burundu y‟umwihariko no kunyagwa impeta za gisirikare. [4] Mu gufata umwanzuro, Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikari rwashingiye ku mpamvu y‟uko Urukiko rwa Gisirikari rwibeshye ku ngingo yakoreshejwe mu guhana iki cyaha kuko hakoreshejwe ingingo ya 78 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº16/2004 ryo kuwa 19/6/2004 rigenga imiterere, ububasha n‟imikorere by‟Inkiko Gacaca zishinzwe gukurikirana no gucira imanza abakoze ibyaha bya jenoside n‟ibindi byaha byibasiye inyoko muntu byakozwe hagati y‟itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n‟itariki ya 31 Ukuboza 1994 nk‟uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iyo ngingo ikaba ihana abakoze ibyaha bya jenoside batarageza ku myaka 18 ariko bari barengeje imyaka 14 y‟amavuko. Ruvuga ko kuba ushinjwa yari arengeje imyaka 18 y‟amavuko igihe yakoraga ibyo byaha kuko yavutse 1955, ingingo igomba gukoreshwa ari iya 72 igika cya mbere UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 105

Page 133

cy‟Itegeko-Ngenga Nº16/2004 ryo kuwa 19/6/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru nk‟uko ryahinduwe kandi rikuzuzwa n‟ingingo ya 17 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº13/2008 ryo kuwa 19/5/2008. [5] Rwasanze ku byerekeye impamvu nyoroshyacyaha zagenwe n‟Urukiko rwa Gisirikare, zituma ushinjwa ibyaha bya Jenoside agabanyirizwa ibihano, ziteganyijwe mu gika cya kabiri n‟icya gatatu by‟ingingo ya 72 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº 16/2004 ryo kuwa 19/6/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru ku bantu bemeye ibyaha, bakicuza bakagisabira n‟imbabazi, ko izindi mpamvu iyo zihari hakurikizwa ingingo ya 81 y‟iryo Tegeko Ngenga, ivuga ko iyo impamvu zihari hatangwa igihano gitoya cyateganyirijwe icyo cyaha, bityo ko Urukiko rwa Gisirikari rwibeshye rukoresha ingingo ya 82 y‟Itegeko-Teka Nº21/77 ryo kuwa 18/08/1977 rishyiraho Igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana ibyaha bisanzwe. [6] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque ntiyishimiye imikirize y‟urubanza RPA 0001/GEN/010/HCM rwaciwe ku wa 29/09/2011 n‟Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, arujuririra muri uru Rukiko, avuga ko yahaniwe kugira uruhare mu iyicwa ry‟impuzi z‟i Cyahinda kandi atari ahari, no kuba Urukiko rwaramuhamije icyaha rugenekereje ndetse akaba asanga ntacyo yari gukora kuko yari atakiri umuyobozi muri Butare. [7] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 2/11/2015 Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yunganiwe na Me Bimenyimana Emmanuel naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Lt. Nzakamwita Faustin, Umushinjacyaha wa Gisirikari. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 106

Page 134

II. IBIBAZO BIGARAGARA MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA

RYABYO II.1. Kumenya niba Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yari Umuyobozi wa Jandarumori ya Butare mu gihe impunzi zari zarahungiye i Cyahinda zicwaga. [8] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque avuga ko mu ma saa cyenda z‟amanywa yo ku wa 18/04/1994 ari bwo yohereje Sous- Lieutenant Majoro i Cyahinda, we asigara i Butare, uwo mugoroba aba ari bwo abona ubutumwa bw‟uko yimurirwe i Kigali, bukeye azinduka agenda kubera ko ibyemezo bya Gisirikare bihita byubahirizwa (effet immédiat), ubuyobozi abusigira Sous-Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga waje gusimburwa na Major Rusigariye Alfred nyuma y‟iminsi ibiri; ko nubwo yemera ko Sous-Lieutenant Majoro yoherezwa i Cyahinda yari agikuriye Jandarumori ya Butare, ibyo kwica impunzi z‟i Cyahinda atabimenye kuko nta mugambi bacuranye, atari agihari kandi niyo aza kuba agihari ntacyo yari kubikoraho kubera ko nta bubasha yari akimufiteho kuko yari yimuwe, kutubahiriza amabwiriza amwimura ahubwo aricyo cyaha, ko iby‟ubwicanyi bw‟izo mpunzi yabimenye ku wa 26/04/1994 agarutse i Butare mu gahushya k‟amasaha make yemerewe kugira ngo akore ihererekanya bubasha na Major Rusigariye Alfred, byose bigaragaza ko Sous-Lieutenant Majoro ari we ukwiye kubazwa ibyo yakoze, we akagirwa umwere kuko batari bafatanyije uwo mugambi. [9] Me Bimenyimana Emmanuel avuga ko ubwicanyi bw‟impunzi bwabaye Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yatumweho n‟Ubuyobozi bwa Jandarumori (Etat major) kujya gukomereza UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 107

Page 135

imirimo ye i Kigali, bigaragaza ko iyimurwa rye n‟irya Prefet wa Butare ryabaye ku wa 19/04/1994 ariryo ryateye icyuho cyatumye ubwicanyi bw‟Abatutsi butangira icyo gihe, bityo Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare rukaba rwaramuhamije icyaha rugenekereje kubera ko ubwicanyi bukorwa yari yaravuye ku buyobozi bwa jandarumori ya Butare. [10] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko dosiye igaragaraza ko ku wa 19/4/1994 nyuma ya saa sita aribwo Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yamenye ko yimuwe kandi icyo gihe akaba yari ataramenya uzamusimbura kuko nta hererekanya bubasha (hand over) ryari ryagakozwe kubera ko Major Rusigariye Alfred wagombaga kumusimbura yari atarahagera, ko rero ubuyobozi butasigiwe Sous Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga nk‟uko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque abivuga kuko atari we bari gukorana ihererekanya bubasha. [11] Akomeza avuga ko kuba Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yarohereje Sous-Lieutenant Majoro i Cyahinda we agasigara i Butare bitavuga ko atashoboraga gutanga amabwiriza kuko isasu rya mbere ritari kuraswa atabizi, bivuga ko iyo aba atifatanyije nabo yari kurara abakuyeyo, kandi ko igihe abajandarume bazanaga imirambo ya bagenzi babo basanze akiri mu Kigo nk‟uko byemejwe na Cpl Dufitumukiza Anaclet, ntiyabwira Major Rusigariye Alfred ko Abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda bakoze amahano, ko kugeza ubu nta kimenyetso atanga cy‟uko yari i Kigali, usibye ko niyo yagaragaza ko yari i Kigali bitamuvanaho uburyozwacyaha kubera ko yari akiri Umuyobozi bitewe n‟uko yari atarasimburwa, bityo akaba akwiye kubiryozwa.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108

Page 136

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque avuga ko ubutumwa bumwimura yabubonye k‟umugoroba wo ku wa 18/04/1994, nyamara muri dosiye bigaragara ko yavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare ko ku wa 19/04/1994 ari bwo yabonye telegaramu imusaba kuba yageze ku Kacyiru saa munani z‟amanywa, kandi ko atahise asimburwa ( “ Le 19/04/1994, j‟ai reçu un telegramme de l‟EM/GDN (Etat Major/ Gendarmerie Nationale) qui m‟appelait à Kacyiru au plus tard à 14 h00 comme Commendant d‟Unité sans me faire remplacer” (côtes 2, 19 na 24), naho abajijwe niba hari za bariyeri zari mu Mujyi wa Butare nyuma y‟urupfu rwa Juvénal Habyarimana, asubiza muri aya magambo « yego, nyuma y‟uko ngiye i Kigali ku wa 19/04/1994 (Après mon départ pour Kigali le 19/04/1994) ( côte ya 21). [13] Urukiko rurasanga Habyarabatuma Cyriaque ari we wafashe icyemezo cyo kohereza abajandarume i Cyahinda, akaba yari akiri i Butare impunzi zari zahungiye i Cyahinda zicwa kubera ko yivugira ko yahavuye ku wa 19/04/1994 izo mpunzi zaraye zicwa n‟abajandarume yohereje. Kuba yarabonye ubutumwa bumwimurira i Kigali ku wa 18/04/1994 akaba atari byo byatuma ataryozwa ubwicanyi bwakozwe n‟abajandarume yohereje, kubera ko yivugira ko atahise agenda cyangwa ngo asimburwe, bivuze ko igihe cyose yari agihari yabayoboraga, uretse ko niyo ahita agenda cyangwa agasimburwa bitari kumubuza gufata ibyemezo cyangwa gusaba uwamusimbuye gufata ibyemezo bikumira cyangwa bihagarika ubwo bwicanyi, kuba ntacyo yakoze akaba yarateshutse ku nshingano ze nk‟Umuyobozi ushyira mu gaciro, akaba akwiye kubiryozwa. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 109

Page 137

II.2. Kumenya niba Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yari azi cyangwa ashobora kumenya ko Abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda bari bwice impunzi z’Abatutsi zahahungiye. [14] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque avuga ko yemera ko ku wa 18/4/1994 yohereje abajandarume i Cyahinda, ariko ko atabatumye kwica impunzi zariyo, ko nawe yafatwaga nk‟icyitso cy‟Abatutsi ari nacyo cyatumye we na Perefe wa Butare bahindurwa ndetse na murumuna we akicwa, ko kuva ubwicanyi bwatangira atigeze agira umugambi wo kwica Abatutsi, ko ibi byemezwa n‟ibaruwa Perefe yamwandikiye amushimira imikoranire ye myiza n‟Ubutegetsi kandi bigashimangirwa n‟ubushakashatsi bwakozwe na André Guchaoua wemeza mu gitabo cye Rwanda 1994: Les politiques du génocide à Butare guhera ku mpapuro za 250 kugeza kuri 303, ko nta bwicanyi bwabaye i Butare Habyarabatuma Cyriaque akiyobora jandarumori yaho. Habyarabatuma avuga ko guhera ku wa 18/04/1994 akimara kwimurirwa i Kigali, ubuyobozi bwahawe Sous–Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga waje gusimburwa na Major Rusigariye, ko n‟ubwo ubwo impunzi z‟abatutsi zicwaga i Cyahinda nawe yari agihari atari akihayobora kandi ko atatumye abajandarume kwica, akaba asaba uru Rukiko gukosora amakosa yakozwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare rumuhamya kandi rumuhanira icyaha atakoze, akarenganurwa. [15] Me Bimenyimana Emmanuel avuga ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yahamijwe icyaha cy‟ubwicanyi bw‟impunzi zari i Cyahinda kandi nta ruhare na ruto yabugizemo, ko ibivugwa ko yahaye abajandarume intwaro ngo bajye kwica abantu i Cyahinda ari ibinyoma kubera ko Cpl Dufitumukiza Anaclet yavuze ko nta mabwiriza yo kwica Major Habyarabatuma ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110

Page 138

yigeze aha abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda, ko kandi iyo aza kuba afite umugambi w‟ubwicanyi atari kubura umututsi n‟umwe yica kubera ko, nk‟uko Ubushinjacyaha bubivuga, ubwicanyi bwatangiye ku wa 07/4/1994, kandi kugeza ku wa 18/04/1994 nta Mututsi wari wakishwe i Butare, Ubushinjacyaha bukaba butagaragaza kandi ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yatanze amabwiriza yo kwica impunzi cyangwa ko abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda bari basanzwe bazwiho ibikorwa by‟urugomo ku buryo uwabohereje yari guteganya ko bakora ubwo bwicanyi, kandi ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque atashoboraga guhana abajandarume bakoze ubwicanyi, kuko nta bushobozi bujyanye n‟ubuyobozi yari agifite kuko yari yahinduriwe imirimo, byose bigaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare rwirengagije ihame ry‟uko uburyozwacyaha ari gatozi ku wakoze icyaha, bigatuma Habyarabatuma Cyriaque ahanirwa icyaha cyakozwe na Sous-Lieutenant Majoro. [16] Avuga kandi ko asanga urubanza rwa Habyarabatuma Cyriaque rwafatwa kimwe n‟urw‟Ubushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare bwareze General de Brigade Wislon Gumisiriza wari ukurikiranweho ubwicanyi bw‟Abihaye Imana bwakozwe n‟abasirikare yayoboraga, Urukiko rukemeza ko General de Brigade Wilson Gumisiriza atari azi cyangwa ashobora kumenya ko abasirikare be bari bukore ubwo bwicanyi, bivuze ko no kuri Habyarabatuma Cyriaque ariwo mwanzuro wagombye gufatwa kubera ko atari azi cyangwa ngo ashobore kumenya ko Abajandarume yohereje kurinda impunzi bari buzice, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko gukosora ayo makosa uwo yunganira akagirwa umwere. [17] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque kimwe n‟umwunganira batavugisha ukuri, ko UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 111

Page 139

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, nka “Commandant de Groupement”, yajyanye na Prefet i Cyahinda ku wa 17/04/1994, yizeza impunzi ko azazoherereza ubufasha, bukeye yoherezayo abajandarume yatumye kuzana imbunda zari mu nkambi n‟imirambo y‟abajandarume bari bahiciwe nk‟uko Cpl Dufitumukiza Anaclet abyemeza, ko abo bajandarume boherejwe bahagurutse mu Kigo barakaye, bageze mu nkambi barasa impunzi, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque akaba ataregwa gutanga amabwiriza yo kwica impunzi, ahubwo aregwa kuba ataratanze amabwiriza yo kutica izo mpunzi z‟Abatutsi, cyangwa se kwirengagiza gufata ingamba zari gutuma abo bajandarume batica Abatutsi bari bahungiye i Cyahinda, bityo ko agomba kubazwa ibyakozwe n‟abo yohereje nk‟uko biteganywa n‟ingingo ya 53, igika cya 2, y‟Itegeko-Ngenga Nº16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/6/2004 rigena imiterere, ububasha n‟imikorere y‟Inkiko-Gacaca zishinzwe gukurikirana no gucira imanza abakoze ibyaha bya jenoside n‟ibindi byaha byibasiye inyoko muntu byakozwe hagati ya 01/10/1990 na 31/12/1994.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [18] Ingingo ya 51 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº16/2004 ryo ku wa 19/6/2004 ryavuzwe haruguru iteganya ko: « hakurikijwe ibikorwa bigaragaza uruhare rwe mu gukora ibyaha biteganywa n‟ingingo ya mbere y‟iri Tegeko Ngenga, byakozwe hagati y‟itariki ya mbere Ukwakira 1990 n‟iya 31 Ukuboza 1994, ushinjwa ashobora gushyirwa mu nzego zikurikira : umuntu wari icyo gihe mu nzego z‟ubuyobozi: mu rwego rw‟Igihugu, urwa Perefegitura, urwa Superefegitura n‟urwa Komini, mu mashyaka ya politiki, mu Gisirikare, muri Jandarumori, Polisi ya Komini, mu madini cyangwa mu mitwe yitwara gisirikari ku buryo butemewe n‟amategeko, akaba yarakoze ibyo byaha ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 112

Page 140

cyangwa akoshya abandi kubikora, hamwe n‟ibyitso bye; 3° umwicanyi ruharwa wamamaye aho yari ari cyangwa aho yanyuze kubera umwete. Naho ingingo ya 53 y‟iryo Tegeko Ngenga iteganya ko icyitso ari umuntu watanze inkunga mu gukora icyaha, mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, ku bantu bavugwa mu ngingo ya 51 y‟iri Tegeko Ngenga. Kuba igikorwa icyo aricyo cyose cyateganyijwe n‟iri Tegeko Ngenga cyarakozwe n‟uyoborwa ntibibuza umuyobozi we kuryozwa icyaha cyakozwe mu gihe yari azi cyangwa yashoboraga kumenya ko uwo ategeka yari yiteguye gukora icyo cyaha cyangwa yagikoze, umuyobozi we ntabe yarafashe ibyemezo bikwiye kugira ngo abakoze icyaha bahanwe cyangwa abuze icyo cyaha gukorwa kandi yari abishoboye. [19] Dosiye y‟urubanza igaragaza ko uwitwa Munyeshuli Protogène yavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare ko impunzi z‟i Cyahinda zabanje guhangana n‟abajandarume, bicamo bamwe babarashishije imiheto, babambura n‟imbunda ebyiri, aribwo ku wa 17/04/1994, Perefe Habyarimana yazanye na Major Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, uyu akabizeza ko agiye guhindura abo bajandarume bicana akaboherereza abazima bazabacungira umutekano, ariko bukeye ku wa 18/04/1994, aho kwimura Abajandarume bari bahari ahubwo akoherezayo abandi baje bitwaje imbunda za rutura (côtes 154-156), naho Rusatsi Jean akaba yaravuze ko abo bajandarume baje baturutse i Butare bafatanyije nabo bahasanze babagotera impande zose babarasisha imbunda nini n‟intoya, abarokotse bicwa n‟interahamwe (côte 151). [20] Nteziryayo Jean Baptiste nawe yavugiye mu Bushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare ko Perefe wa Butare n‟Umukuru w‟Abajandarume bageze i Cyahinda, impunzi zibereka UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 113

Page 141

imirambo n‟inkomere by‟impunzi bikomoka ku mirwano yari imaze iminsi ibiri hagati y‟impunzi, Abajandarume n‟Interahamwe, babemerera kubahindurira ababacungira umutekano, ariko muri iryo joro abo bayobozi bajemo imirwano irakomera bashobora kwica abajandarume babiri no kubambura imbunda, bukeye (kuvuga ku wa 18/04/1994) haza abandi bajandarume biyongera ku bari bahasanzwe, bagota inkambi mu ma saa tatu za mugitondo, barasa baturutse impande zose bakoresheje imbunda zitigeze zikoreshwa mbere, abarokotse bicwa n‟interahamwe zarimo n‟Abarundi (côtes 128-130). [21] Dosiye y‟urubanza igaragaza kandi ko Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet nawe yemeje mu Bushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikare ko Abajandarume bahurije hamwe impunzi zari i Cyahinda bashaka kuzambura intwaro za gakondo zari zifite, impunzi zica abajandarume babiri zibatemye, zibambura n‟imbunda, bukeye (ku wa 18/04/1994) aba ari bwo Major Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yafashe “Section” y‟abo bajandarume bishwe iyobowe na Sous-Lieutenant Majoro abaha imbunda zikomeye [za mitrailleuses n‟izindi] “ngo bazambure [impunzi] imbunda bazane n‟abo ba GDS [gendarmes] bapfuye”, ko abo bajandarume bahamaze iminsi itatu kandi ko haguye abantu benshi (côte 192). [22] Urukiko rurasanga ibimaze kuvugwa haruguru bigaragaza ko Major Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yafashe icyemezo cyo kohereza abajandarume i Cyahinda nyuma y‟uko abari yo barwanye n‟impunzi z‟Abatutsi zikicamo babiri, zikabambura n‟imbunda, guhitamo koherezayo abajandarume bo muri “Section” yiciwe bagenzi babo, no kubaha imbunda zikomeye zirimo “mitrailleuse”, akabatuma kuzana imirambo y‟Abajandarume n‟imbunda byafashwe n‟izo mpunzi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 114

Page 142

z‟Abatutsi, anasanzwe azi ko muri icyo gihe Abatutsi bahigwaga kandi bakicirwa ubusa, bivuguruza ibyo avuga ko abo bajandarume bari bagiye kubungabunga umutekano w‟izo mpunzi (côte 27), bityo nubwo avuga ko atatumye abo bajandarume kwica izo mpunzi, kuba yarabahaye imbunda zikomeye batagiye ku rugamba, ntagire n‟icyo ababuza cyerekeranye n‟ubuzima bw‟impunzi yari azi ko buri mu kaga kubera ko yari yahigereye akabona imirambo y‟impunzi zishwe n‟izakomerekejwe n‟Abajandarume, byerekana ko yari azi cyangwa yashoboraga kumenya ko izo mpunzi zishobora kwicwa n‟abo bajandarume, nyamara akaba ntacyo yakoze ngo akumire ubwo bwicanyi butaraba. [23] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibyo Habyarabatuma Cyriaque na Me Bimenyimana Emmanuel bavuga ko ihame ry‟uko uburyozwacyaha ari gatozi ryahonyanzwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare nta shingiro bikwiye guhabwa kubera ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque akurikiranyweho, nk‟umuyobozi, uburyozwacyaha ku cyaha mpuzamahanga cya jenoside, ku birebana n‟icyo cyaha, Urukiko Mpuzamahanga rw‟icyahoze cyitwa Yugoslavia (ICTY) rukaba rwaremeje ko ihame ry‟uko abayobozi mu Gisirikare no mu zindi nzego bashobora kuryozwa ibikorwa by‟abo bayobora rimaze gushinga imizi mu masezerano no mu muco mpuzamahanga kandi ko uburyozwacyaha k‟umuyobozi bitavuga ko aba akurikiranyweho ibyaha byakozwe n‟abo ayobora ahubwo aba aryozwa kudashyira mu bikorwa inshingano ze zo kuyobora uko bikwiye1, bikongera bikemezwa n‟Urukiko Mpuzamahanga

1 “The principle that military and other superiors may be held criminally responsible for the acts of their subordinates is well-established in conventional and customary international law.” Prosecutor v. Mucic et al, ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 115

Page 143

rwashyiriweho u Rwanda mu rubanza Ubushinjacyaha bwaburanaga na Bagosora Théoneste na Anatole Nsengiyumva aho urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko Bagosora Théoneste akwiye kuryozwa kuba atarakumiriye ubwicanyi bw‟abasiviri bwakozwe n‟abasirikare yari ashinzwe kuyobora.2 [24] Urukiko rurasanga abahanga mu mategeko mpanabyaha mpuzamahanga nabo bemeza ko ihame ry‟uburyozwacyaha bw‟abayobozi kubera ibyaha byakozwe n‟abo bayobora ari umwihariko w‟amategeko mpanabyaha mpuzamahanga rikaba ritari mu mategeko mpanabyaha y‟ibihugu, muri iki gihe rikaba rimaze gukomera mu muco mpuzamahanga, kandi ko uburyozwacyaha k‟umuyobozi bukomoka k‟ubushake bwo kudafata icyemezo nyamara ari mu gihe umuyobozi asabwa gufata icyemezo, bikaba byafatwa kimwe n‟ubwijiracyaha cyangwa uburangare mu kubahiriza inshingano,3 byose

“where superior responsibility is concerned, an accused is not charged with the crime of his subordinates but with his failure to carry out his duty as a superior to exercise control.”Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para 171. 2 “The Appeals Chambers affirms the Trial Chamber‟s findings that he [Bagosora Théoneste] is liable under Article 6(3) of the Statute for failing in his duty to prevent the killings of Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, Joseph Kavaruganda, Frédéric Nzamurambaho, Landoald Ndasingwa, and Faustin Rucogoza, as well as the crimes committed at Centre Christus, Kabeza, Kibagabaga Mosque, the Saint Josephite Centre, Karama Hill, Kibagabaga Catholic Church, and Gikondo Parish.” Reba Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva, ICTR (Appeal Judgment), Case NoICTR-98-41-A, 14 December 2011, para 697. 3 The concept of superior responsibility is an original creation of international criminal law for which there are no paradigms in national legal systems… *It is today enchroed firmly in customary international law.” Reba Gerhard Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law, The Hague: Asser Press, 2005, pp. 128-137 na “Command responsibility moves from deliberate ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116

Page 144

bishimangira ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque akwiye kuryozwa ibikorwa bya jenoside byakozwe n‟Abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda ku wa 18/04/1994. [25] Urukiko rurasanga kandi urubanza rwa Brigadier General Wilson Gumisiriza, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque n‟umwunganira basaba ko uru rukiko rwashingiraho rwemeza ko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque atari azi cyangwa ngo ashobore kumenya ko abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda bari bwice impunzi, rudahuye n‟uru rubanza, kubera ko nk‟uko byagaragajwe haruguru, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yari azi ko abatutsi barimo guhigwa bakicwa, azi ko impunzi z‟abatutsi zari zahungiye i Cyahinda ubwazo zirimo kwicwa, ni nawe wohereje abajandarume bishe izo mpunzi z‟abatutsi kandi abohereza azi cyangwa ashobora kumenya ko izo mpunzi zishobora kwicwa, bitandukanye n‟ibyemejwe mu rubanza rwa Brigadier General Wilson Gumisiriza, ko atari azi cyangwa ashobora kumenya ko abasirikare be bari bukore ubwo bwicanyi. II.3. Kumenya niba nyuma y’ubwicanyi bw’impunzi z’i Cyahinda, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque yarateshutse ku nshingano yo gufatira ibyemezo abajandarume bakoze ubwo bwicanyi. [26] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque na Me Bimenyimana Emmanuel umwunganira bavuga ko ku wa 19/4/1994 ubwo Habyarabatuma na Prefet wa Butare bimurwaga ariho ubwicanyi bwatangiye, ko iyimurwa ryabo ryatanze icyuho ku

failure to intervene despite a duty to do so, which fall close to traditional complicity ideas, to in essence, conduct which is close to, if not the same as negligent dereliction of duties.” Robert Cryer, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambride: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p.399. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 117

Page 145

bashakaga gukora jenoside, kandi ko guhera icyo gihe kugeza ku wa 26/04/1994, aje gukorana ihererekanyabubasha na Major Rusigariye Alfred, yari ataramenya amakuru y‟uko izo mpunzi zishwe, kandi ko icyo gihe nta bubasha yari igifite kuri «unité» y‟i Butare ku buryo yari guhana abishe impunzi z‟i Cyahinda kubera ko yari yaravuye ku buyobozi bw‟iyo «unité» uhereye ku wa 19/04/1994, byose bigaragaza ko Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare rwaciye urubanza rugenekereje, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko gukosora ayo makosa akagirwa umwere. [27] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare rwerekanye ko iyo Habyarabatuma Cyriaque asiga ahannye bariya bajandarume yari kuba yerekanye ko atari afatanyije umugambi nabo, ko no ku wa 18/04/1994 yashoboraga kurara abavanye i Cyahinda, bigaragaza ko igihe cyose yari akiri mu Kigo, Sous-Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga ntacyo yari gukora, ko ibyo avuga ko yahise atanga ubuyobozi cyangwa atabonye umwanya wo guhana bidashoboka kubera ko nta na rimwe Sous-lieutenant ashobora gufata ubuyobozi Major agihari, kandi Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet yivugiye ko abajandarume bagarukana imirambo basanze Habyarabatuma Cyriaque agihari, bityo akaba asaba uru Rukiko kwemeza ko nta kugenekereza kwabayeho mu rubanza rujuririrwa, imikirize yarwo ikagumaho.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [28] Dosiye y‟urubanza igaragaza ko abazwa mu Bushinjacyaha bwa Gisirikiare, Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet yavuze ko na nyuma y‟ihererekanyabubasha na Major Rusigariye, yabonaga Habyarabatuma Cyriaque afite ijambo muri « unité » ya Butare (côte 191), nawe (Habyarabatuma ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 118

Page 146

Cyriaque) akaba yemera ko yari “Commandant” wa Jandarumori ya Butare kugeza agiye gukorera i Kigali ku wa 19/04/1994 mu ma saa ine cyangwa saa tanu, kandi ko kugeza ku wa 26/04/1994 akora ihererekanyabubasha na Major Rusigariye Alfred yari atarasimburwa (côtes 19-20, 24, 686). Bigaragara kandi ko imbere y‟Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare yabajijwe niba abajandarume bishe abantu i Cyahinda barahanwe, asubiza ko habayeho «débordement» abajandarume bakica abaturage n‟abaturage bakica abajandarume ariko ko Major Rusigariye Alfred wamusimbuye yahannye Sous- Lieutenant Majoro wari uyoboye abo bajandarume bishe impunzi, ko icyatumye atamwihanira ari uko yari afite byinshi mu mutwe (côtes 684-687). [29] Urukiko rurasanga ubwicanyi bw‟i Cyahinda bwo ku wa 18/04/1994 bwarakozwe n‟Abajandarume boherejwe na Habyarabatuma Cyriaque wivugira ko kugeza ku wa 26/04/1994 yari atarasimburwa, byumvikanisha ko kugeza icyo gihe yari agifatwa nkaho ariwe Muyobozi Mukuru wa Jandarumori ya Butare (Commandant de fait) kabone n‟ubwo yari yoherejwe gukorera ku Cyicaro Gikuru cya Jandarumori, ibi bigashimangirwa n‟imvugo ya Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet uvuga ko na nyuma y‟ihererekanyabubasha babonaga Habyarabatuma Cyriaque akibafiteho ijambo kandi yari atakibayobora, byose bigaragaza ko amabwiriza yari gutanga yari kubahirizwa, bityo mu gihe atakumiriye ubwicanyi, ntanafatire abajandarume yohereje i Cyahinda babukoze ibihano ahubwo agategereza ko bahanwa n‟utarabohereje, ntanasabe ko hakorwa iperereza ry‟ubwo bwicanyi kugira ngo ababigizemo uruhare bakurikiranwe, bigaragaza ko yateshutse ku nshingano ze nk‟Umuyobozi. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 119

Page 147

[30] Urukiko rurasanga uyu murongo ari nawo wemejwe n‟Urukiko Mpanabyaha Mpuzamahanga rw‟icyahoze cyitwa Yugoslaviya aho rwavuze ko “ububasha bwo gukumira cyangwa guhana ibyaha busabwa abayobozi butagombera byanze bikunze ko uwo muyobozi aba ayobora mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko. Mu makimbirane y‟iki gihe, birashoboka ko abayobozi bishyiraho, habaho za Guverinoma zitemewe cyangwa ingabo n‟imitwe yitwara gisirikare yishyizeho. Inzego z‟ubuyobozi zishobora gushyirwaho huti huti, zishobora kuba ziri mu kajagari cyangwa zicyiyubaka. Kugirango icyo gihe amategeko yubahirizwe ni ngombwa ko abayoborwa n‟abayobozi bafataga ibyemezo babazwa ibyo bakoze kabone nubwo abo bayobozi baba batarashyizweho mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko.”4 [31] Hashingiwe ku byagaragajwe byose, Urukiko rurasanga nk‟uko byemejwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque ahamwa n‟icyaha cy‟ubufatanyacyaha mu cyaha cya jenoside yakorewe impunzi z‟Abatutsi zari zarahungiye i Cyahinda, bityo ubujurire bwe bukaba nta shingiro bufite.

4 “The principle that military and other superiors may be held criminally responsible for the acts of their subordinates is well-established in conventional and customary international law.” Prosecutor v. Mucic et al, ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195. “where superior responsibility is concerned, an accused is not charged with the crime of his subordinates but with his failure to carry out his duty as a superior to exercise control.”Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para 171. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 120

Page 148

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [32] Rwemeye ko ubujurire rwashyikirijwe na Assistant Commissioner of Police Habyarabatuma Cyriaque nta shingiro bufite. [33] Rwemeje ko urubanza no RPA/GEN0001/010/HCM rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikari ku wa 29/9/2011 rudahindutse. [34] Rutegetse ko amagarama y‟uru rubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta kuko Habyarabatuma Cyriaque afunze.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARABATUMA 121

Page 150

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW‟IKIRENGA – RS/REV/INJUST/PEN0001/16/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Mutashya na Gatete, J.) 10 Kamena 2016] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ubushoreke – Kubana nk‟inshoreke mu buryo buhoraho – Byitwa kubana mu buryo buhoraho hitawe kugihe bamarana babana, kiba cyaratumye rubanda n‟abaturanyi bababonamo imyitwarire y‟umugabo n‟umugore babana hatitawe ku burebure bw‟icyo gihe bamarana, gusa uko kubana kwabo kugaherekezwa n‟ibikorwa bifatika ku buryo buri wese ubibona, nta gushidikanya agira mu kwemeza ko abo bantu babana nk‟umugabo n‟umugore – Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 247. Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y‟imanza nshinjabyaha – Uburenganzira busesuye bw‟ubushinjacyaha bwo gukurikirana cyangwa kudakurikirana – Kuba umwe mu nshoreke atakurikiranywe, ntibivuga ko uwakurikiranywe agomba kuba umwere – Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 43. Indishyi – Indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha hagati y‟abashyingiranywe – Ntibibujijwe ko umuntu yategekwa guha uwo bashyingiranywe indishyi z‟akababaro zijyanye n‟icyaha yamukoreye mu gihe kimuhama, kabone n‟iyo baba baravanze umutungo. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uregwa yagejejwe imbere y‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga akurikiranywe ku cyaha 123

Page 151

cy‟ubushoreke, rwemeza ko adahamwa n‟icyaha kubera ko umucamanza yasanze nta kigaragaza ko abana n‟uwafatwaga nk‟inshoreke nk‟umugabo n‟umugore mu buryo buhoraho, kuko aba mu Bubiligi, ko n‟abatangabuhamya babajijwe batagaragaza ko babana mu buryo buhoraho. Uwari waregeye indishyi, yajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya bemeje ko uregwa afite inshoreke, ajuririra kandi indishyi avuga ko atahawe. Urukiko rwemeje ko ubujurire bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko urubanza rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, runategeka ko uregwa ahamwa n‟icyaha cy‟ubushoreke, rumuhanisha igifungo cy‟amezi 6 n‟ihazabu y‟amafaranga ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw), runamutegeka guha indishyi z‟akababaro uwaziregeye. Uregwa yasubirishijemo urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwirengagije ibimenyetso, rushingira ku mvugo z‟ibinyoma z‟abatangabuhamya, runirengagiza amategeko ahana ubushoreke, aho rwamuhamije icyaha cy‟ubushoreke kubera ko yabaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho, kandi kuhaba mu buryo buhoraho bitaranashobokaga, kuko adashobora kuba icyarimwe mu buryo buhoraho kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance atahatuye ngo anahabarurirwe, ngo anabe mu buryo buhoraho mu Bubiligi kuko ariho abarizwa. Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Urukiko rwazasobanura icyo ariya magambo mu “buryo buhoraho” avuga, kuko itegeko ritayasobanuye, hakamenyekana niba ari mu buryo buhoraho umunsi ku munsi kugeza gupfa, cyangwa se niba ari ukuhaza kenshi gashoboka, cyangwa se niba kuza ukahamara icyumweru ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 124

Page 152

kimwe, ukwezi kumwe, abiri, atatu se cyangwa umwaka, bihagije kugirango byitwe mu buryo buhoraho. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Ku cyaha cy‟ubushoreke, ijambo kubana “mu buryo buhoraho, si ukuvuga ko abantu bagomba kubana bagatandukanywa n‟urupfu, cyangwa se ngo babane akaramata nk‟umugabo n‟umugore bashyingiranywe mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko, ahubwo icyangombwa, ni uko igihe bamarana babana, kiba cyaratumye rubanda n‟abaturanyi bababonamo imyitwarire y‟umugabo n‟umugore babana hatitawe ku burebure bw‟icyo gihe bamarana, gusa uko kubana kwabo kugaherekezwa n‟ibikorwa bifatika ku buryo buri wese ubibona, nta gushidikanya agira mu kwemeza ko abo bantu babana nk‟umugabo n‟umugore birimo kuhaba, kuharara, kwakira abashyitsi, kujyana guhaha, kujyana abana ku ishuri, n‟ibindi.

2. Ubushinjacyaha bufite uburenganzira busesuye bwo guhitamo uwo bushyikiriza Urukiko. Bityo rero kuba umwe mu nshoreke atakurikiranywe, ntibivuga ko uwakurikiranywe agomba kuba umwere.

3. Ntibibujijwe ko umuntu yategekwa guha uwo bashyingiranywe indishyi z‟akababaro zijyanye n‟icyaha yamukoreye mu gihe kimuhama, kabone niyo baba baravanze umutungo. Bityo, kuba uregwa yaraciwe indishyi z‟akababaro nta karengane karimo. Ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane nta shingiro gifite.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 125

Page 153

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 247 na 249. Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo kuwa 10/9/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ingingo ya 2(4º) na 21(2o). Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo kuwa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha, ingingo ya 43. Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 65. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga Muzatsinda aregwa icyaha cy‟ubushoreke biturutse ku mugore we witwa Umutesi Afisa wamureze ko yinjiye undi mugore witwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance. Urukiko rwemeje ko Muzatsinda adahamwa n‟icyaha yaregwaga agirwa umwere kubera ko umucamanza yasanze nta kigaragaza ko abana na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance nk‟umugabo n‟umugore mu buryo buhoraho, kuko aba mu Bubiligi (domicilié en Belgique), ko n‟abatangabuhamya babajijwe batagaragaza ko babana mu buryo buhoraho. [2] Umutesi Afisa waregeye indishyi, yajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge avuga ko Urukiko rwirengagije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 126

Page 154

imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya bemeje ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel afite inshoreke, ajuririra kandi indishyi avuga ko atahawe. [3] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe Muzatsinda adahari, ariko yarasinyiye itariki y‟iburanisha, Urukiko ruca urubanza ku wa 09/05/2013 rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na Umutesi Afisa bufite ishingiro, rutegeka ko urubanza rwaciwe n‟Urukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga ku wa 31/07/2012 ruhindutse mu ngingo zarwo zose, rutegeka ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel ahamwa n‟icyaha cy‟ubushoreke, rumuhanisha igifungo cy‟amezi 6 n‟ihazabu y‟amafaranga ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw), runamutegeka guha Umutesi Afisa indishyi z‟akababaro zingana na 500.000Frw. [4] Mu bimenyetso Urukiko rwashingiyeho rumuhamya icyo cyaha bikaba ari ubuhamya bwatanzwe n‟abantu batandukanye barimo ushinzwe umudugudu witwa Nshimiyimana Jean Damascène wavuze ko yamubonaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance nk‟umugabo we atazi ko afite undi mugore w‟isezerano, Harerimana alias Kazungu wemeje nawe ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance babanaga nk‟umugabo n‟umugore, Byukusenge Claudine nawe wemeje ko yajyanaga na Muzatsinda Emmanuel ari kumwe na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance amuhaye lift, Kamana Sylvestre ushinzwe amarondo nawe wemeje ko “convocations” zose zajyaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance wamubonaga nk‟umugore wa Muzatsinda Emmanuel. [5] Ku bijyanye n‟indishyi z‟akababaro Umutesi Afisa yari yasabye, Urukiko rwasanze ari ikirenga rumugenera izingana na 500.000Frw, naho izijyanye n‟indishyi yasabye zingana na 14.400.000Frw z‟uko Muzatsinda amaze igihe kinini yarataye urugo, izo atazihabwa kuko atagaragaje aho ashingira azaka. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 127

Page 155

[6] Muzatsinda Emmanuel yasubirishijemo urwo rubanza mu Rukiko rw‟Ikirenga ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, avuga ko Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwirengagije ibimenyetso, rushingira ku mvugo z‟ibinyoma z‟abatangabuhamya, runirengagiza amategeko ahana ubushoreke. [7] Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi rwasanze kuba Muzatsinda Emmanuel yararezwe wenyine ku cyaha cy‟ubushoreke kandi mu ngingo ya 249 y‟igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana bitegetswe ko uwarezwe agomba gukurikiranwa hamwe n‟uwo bakoranye icyaha, bigaragara ko uko kwica itegeko byateje akarengane, cyane cyane ko na Umutesi Afisa mu bujurire bwe, yari yagaragaje ko atishimiye ko Nyirantakirutimana Espérance atakurikiranywe. [8] Urwego rw‟Umuvunyi rwasanze kandi indishyi zingana na 500.000Frw Muzatsinda Emmanuel yategetswe guha umugore we Umutesi Afisa bitari byemewe kuko bari baravanze umutungo, hakirengagizwa amasezerano y‟ivangamutungo w‟abashyingiranywe, bityo ruhereye ku bimaze kuvugwa, rushingiye ku ngingo ya 79 n‟iya 81 z‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012/OL ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, imikorere n‟ububasha bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, urwo rwego rusaba ko urubanza RPA0250/12/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwasubirwamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane. [9] Perezida w‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, amaze kubona ibaruwa y‟Umuvunyi isaba gusubirishamo urwo rubanza ku mpamvu z‟akarengane, amaze gusuzuma raporo yakozwe n‟Ubugenzuzi Bukuru bw‟Inkiko kuri uru rubanza, ashingiye ku Itegeko Ngenga Nº03/2012 ryo ku wa 13/06/2012 rigena imiterere, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128

Page 156

imikorere, n‟ubushasha by‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga mu ngingo yaryo ya 80, yemeje ko urubanza RPA0250/12/TGI/NYGE rwoherezwa mu bwanditsi bw‟Urukiko rw‟Ikirenga, rukandikwa mu bitabo byabugenewe kugira ngo ruzongere ruburanishwe mu mizi. [10] Iburanisha ryabaye ku wa 25/04/2016 Muzatsinda Emmanuel yunganiwe na Me Barahira Eric na Me Ruberwa Pierre, Umutesi Afisa (uregera indishyi) yunganiwe na Me Ayifayi Augustin, naho Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Mukunzi Faustin, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw‟Igihugu. [11] Usibye ibibazo Umuvunyi yashyikirije Urukiko, Muzatsinda Emmanuel mu iburanisha ry‟urubanza yongeyeho ikindi cyo kuba yarahamijwe icyaha cy‟ubushoreke kandi atarabaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho buvugwa mu ngingo ya 247 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO [12] Ibibazo bigomba gusuzumwa muri uru rubanza: hari icyo kumenya icyo amagambo “mu buryo buhoraho” avugwa mu ngingo ya 247 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana asobanura, kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bifatika bigaragaza ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel yabanaga na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho ku buryo bifatwa nk‟ubushoreke, kumenya niba kuba Nyirantakirutimana Espérance atarakurikiranywe, byafatwa nk‟akarengane, n‟icyo kumenya UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 129

Page 157

niba umwe mu bashakanye ku ivangamutungo risesuye, ashobora gutegekwa guha uwo bashakanye indishyi zikomoka ku cyaha yamukoreye. A. Kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bifatika bigaragaza ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel yabanaga na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho ku buryo bifatwa nk’ubushoreke. A.1. Kumenya icyo amagambo “mu buryo buhoraho” avugwa mu ngingo ya 247 y’Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana asobanura. [13] Muzatsinda Emmanuel avuga ko Urukiko rwamwemeje icyaha cy‟ubushoreke kubera ko yabaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho, kandi atarahabaga mu buryo buhoraho, ko cyakora yahanyuraga aje kumusura kubera ko asanzwe ari inshuti y‟umuryango, kandi ko kuhaba mu buryo buhoraho bitanashoboka, kuko adashobora kuba icyarimwe mu buryo buhoraho kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance atahatuye ngo anahabarurirwe, ngo anabe mu buryo buhoraho mu Bubiligi kuko ariho abarizwa. [14] Umutesi Afisa uregera indishyi avuga ko ubwo bushoreke bwabayeho kuko Muzatsinda Emmanuel yavaga mu Bubiligi akaza mu Rwanda akahamara amezi atatu kandi ko ayo mezi yose yayamaraga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance babana, ko n‟abaturanyi be bose babizi. [15] Me Ayifayi Augustin avuga ko kugirango icyaha cy‟ubushoreke kibeho, igihe atari cyo kamara, ko gishobora kuba kigufi cyangwa kirekire, gishobora kungana n‟ukwezi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 130

Page 158

cyangwa umwaka, icyangombwa ni uburyo babigaragariza rubanda. [16] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Urukiko rwazasobanura icyo ariya magambo mu “buryo buhoraho” avuga, kuko itegeko ritayasobanuye, hakamenyekana niba ari mu buryo buhoraho umunsi ku munsi kugeza gupfa, cyangwa se niba ari ukuhaza kenshi gashoboka, cyangwa se niba kuza ukahamara icyumweru kimwe, ukwezi kumwe, abiri, atatu se cyangwa umwaka, bihagije kugirango byitwe mu buryo buhoraho.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [17] Ingingo ya 247 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, iteganya ko ubushoreke ari imibanire nk‟umugabo n‟umugore ku buryo buhoraho ku bantu batashyingiranywe, umwe muri bo cyangwa bombi bafite uwo bashyingiranywe. [18] Urukiko rurasanga iyi ngingo itarateganyije ingano y‟igihe umugabo n‟umugore bashobora kumarana, kugirango byitwe ko babana mu buryo buhoraho. [19] Urukiko rurasanga ibisobanuro rwatanga kuri ayo magambo “mu buryo buhoraho”, ari uko atavuga ko abantu bagomba kubana bagatandukanywa n‟urupfu, cyangwa se ngo babane akaramata nk‟umugabo n‟umugore bashyingiranywe mu buryo bwemewe n‟amategeko, ahubwo icyangombwa, aruko igihe bamarana babana, kiba cyaratumye rubanda n‟abaturanyi bababonamo imyitwarire y‟umugabo n‟umugore babana hatitawe ku burebure bw‟icyo gihe bamarana, gusa uko kubana UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 131

Page 159

kwabo kugaherekezwa n‟ibikorwa bifatika ku buryo buri wese ubibona, nta gushidikanya agira mu kwemeza ko abo bantu babana nk‟umugabo n‟umugore birimo kuhaba, kuharara, kwakira abashyitsi, kujyana guhaha, kujyana abana ku ishuri, n‟ibindi. A.2. Kumenya niba hari ibimenyetso bifatika byashingiweho mu guhamya Muzatsinda Emmanuel icyaha cy’ubushoreke. [20] Muzatsinda Emmanuel avuga ko umucamanza yashingiye ku mvugo z‟abatangabuhamya zivuguzanya, aho yavuze ko abatangabuhamya bamushinje ko abana na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho kandi kuri we atari byo, kuko atuye mu Bubiligi adatuye mu Rwanda, ko n‟iyo aje mu Rwanda ataba kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance ahubwo aba iwe mu Rugunga. [21] Abunganira Muzatsinda Emmanuel bavuga ko hari urwandiko rwo kuba ahantu (permis de résidence) igaragaza ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel aba mu Bubiligi ataba mu Rwanda, hakaba n‟inyandiko y‟ubuyobozi bw‟Umudugudu wa Muhabura n‟ubw‟Akagari ivuga ko atahabarurirwa, ko imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya zidasimbura ibyemezo by‟ubuyobozi. [22] Bavuga ko ku byerekeye inyandiko z‟ihamagara za Muzatsinda Emmanuel zanyuraga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, ntazo Muzatsinda yigeze yakira ngo azisinyeho kuko yabaga mu Bubiligi, ko kandi Urukiko rutari gushingira ku mvugo z‟abatangabuhamya, kandi hari inyandiko zivuga ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel atuye mu Bubirigi. [23] Me Ayifayi Augustin avuga ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel adashobora kugaragaza impapuro za Hotel yararagamo igihe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 132

Page 160

yazaga mu Rwanda, ahubwo ko yazaga akaba kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance kandi atari mushiki we. Avuga ko n‟ubwo hari ibyemezo by‟Umudugudu bivuga ko adatuye mu Rwanda, ibyo bitavuze ko kuba atahatuye atahagendaga. [24] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya zitavuguruzanya nk‟uko Muzatsinda Emmanuel ashaka kubyumvikanisha, kuko imvugo ya Byukusenge Claudine iri kuri cote ya 29, igaragaza ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance ababona binjira banasohoka mu gipangu, bakamuha lift mu gitondo ajyanye abana ku ishuri nabo bagiye mu mugi, ko Nshimiyimana nawe kuri “cote ya 31” ashimangira ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel aba muri ruriya rugo, ko Kamana ushinzwe irondo avuga ko yajyagayo ajyanye “convocations” zikakirwa n‟umugore we Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, ibyo biri kuri ya “cote 33, hakaba n‟undi mutangabuhamya Harerimana Jean kuri “cote 35” wavuze ko urugo rwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance rwinjiwe n‟umugabo ufite undi mugore. [25] Avuga kandi ko ingingo ya 247 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, ivuga ko ubushoreke ari imibanire y‟umugabo n‟umugore babana mu buryo buhoraho kandi buri wese afite undi bashakanye, ko ibyo bita ku buryo buhoraho, yabigereranya nk‟umukozi wa Leta ukorera mu Ntara afite urugo i Kigali, ko ibyo bitavuze yuko atabana n‟umugore we ku buryo buhoraho, asaba Urukiko kuzasuzuma iyo ngingo kuko itegeko ryatandukanyije ubushoreke n‟ubusambanyi, ko nta kuntu wakwinjira ahantu ngo uhamare amezi atatu, ngo uvuge ko aho hantu utahaba mu buryo buhoraho. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 133

Page 161

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Ingingo ya 2(4º) y‟Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/9/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ariryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, ndetse n‟ingingo ya 247 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, zombi ziteganya ko ubushoreke ari imibanire nk‟umugabo n‟umugore ku buryo buhoraho ku bantu batashyingiranywe, umwe muri bo cyangwa bombi bafite uwo bashyingiranywe. [27] Inyandiko ziri muri dosiye zigaragaza imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya batandukanye barimo ushinzwe Umudugudu wa Muhabura witwa Nshimiyimana Jean Damascène, wemeje ko kuva akibona Muzatsinda Emmanuel, atari azi ko afite undi mugore w‟isezerano usibye Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, ko na “convocations” za Muzatsinda Emmanuel bazijyanaga kuri uwo mugore kuko babonaga ariho aba. [28] Muri dosiye harimo kandi imvugo z‟undi mutangabuhamya witwa Harerimana Jean wavuze ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance babana nk‟umugore n‟umugabo ahubwo atari azi ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel afite undi mugore w‟isezerano. Hakaba hari n‟abandi batangabuhamya barimo Byukusenge Claudine wavuze ko mu gitondo iyo yabaga ajyanye umwana ku ishuri, Muzatsinda Emmanuel ari kumwe n‟uwo mugore Nyirantakirutimana Espérance bamuhaga lift bavuye mu rugo bagiye ku kazi, n‟undi witwa Kamana Sylvestre wari ushinzwe amarondo nawe wavuze ko Muzatsinda Emmanuel amuzi nk‟umugabo wa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance kuko amubona ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 134

Page 162

buri gihe muri urwo rugo, ko kandi na “convocations” ariho yazijyanaga zikakirwa na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance. [29] Urukiko rurasanga, n‟ubwo Muzatsinda Emmanuel ahakana ko atabanaga na Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho akavuga ko yabaga mu Bubiligi akaza ahitira mu nzu ye iri mu Rugunga, iyo mvugo ye itahabwa agaciro kuko Muzatsinda Emmanuel atigeze abasha kuvuguruza imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya bavuzwe haruguru, bagiye bemeza ko yazaga mu Rwanda agahitira kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance akaba ariho yibera, ko babanaga nk‟umugabo n‟umugore abantu bakabifata batyo kugeza n‟aho inyandiko z‟ihamagara zigenewe Muzatsinda Emmanuel zajyanwaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance. [30] Urukiko rurasanga imvugo z‟abatangabuhamya babajijwe zitavuguruzanya nk‟uko Muzatsinda Emmanuel ashaka kubyumvikanisha ahubwo ziruzuzanya, kuko bose bahuriza ku mvugo y‟uko Muzatsinda Emmanuel iyo yazaga mu Rwanda avuye mu Bubiligi, yabaga kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance kugeza igihe asubiriyeyo, ndetse ko batari bazi ko afite undi mugore w‟isezerano, bityo imvugo zabo zikaba zigomba guhabwa agaciro hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 65 y‟Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo ku wa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n‟itangwa ryabyo1, kuko bavuga ibyo bazi kandi babonye.

1 Urukiko ni rwo rwonyine rupima ko imikirize y‟abatangabuhamya ihuye n‟ikiburanwa, ifite ingingo zikiranuye kandi ikaba ikwiye kwemerwa cyangwa guhakanwa. Ntirwitsitsa ku mubare w‟abatangabuhamya. Rwita cyane cyane ku bumenyi bwabo bw‟ibyabaye no ku buryo babivuga uko byagenze ntacyo bihimbira.

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 135

Page 163

[31] Ku byerekeye ibyo Muzatsinda Emmanuel avuga ko adatuye mu Rwanda aba mu Bubiligi, ko hari ibyemezo by‟Ubuyobozi bw‟Umudugudu bibyemeza, kandi ko bitashobokaga ko yaba kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance mu buryo buhoraho, ngo anabe mu Bubiligi mu buryo buhoraho kuko ariho atuye, Urukiko rurasanga iyo mvugo nta gaciro yahabwa kuko kuba adatuye mu Rwanda, bitavuze ko atahagenda. [32] Urukiko rurasanga kandi kuba yarazaga mu Rwanda akahamara amezi arenga abiri aba kwa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, byakwitwa ko yahabaga mu buryo buhoraho kuko ariho yatahaga, babana ku buryo buzwi n‟umuhisi n‟umugenzi, ariho ashakishirizwa, ariho afite “addresse”, kandi ntibyabaye rimwe gusa, kuko buri gihe iyo yazaga ariho yahitiraga, nawe ubwe akaba yiyemerera ko atashoboraga kureka kuhajya kubera ko umugabo wa Nyirantakirutimana Espérance bari inshuti. [33] Urukiko rurasanga rushingiye ku bimaze kuvugwa, nta karengane kabaye mu ica ry‟urubanza kuri iyi ngingo. B. Kumenya niba kuba Nyirantakirutimana Espérance atarakurikiranywe byafatwa nk’akarengane. [34] Muzatsinda Emmanuel avuga ko yakurikiranywe wenyine kandi ingingo ya 249 y‟Itegeko Ngenga Nº01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana iteganya ko uwarezwe agomba gukurikiranwa hamwe n‟uwakoranye icyaha nawe, bityo kuba uwo bakoranye icyaha atarakurikiranywe, hakaba harimo akarengane. [35] Abamwunganira bavuga ko amategeko y‟ikurikirana ry‟icyaha cy‟ubushoreke yirengagijwe kuko uwakoranye icyaha ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 136

Page 164

na Muzatsinda Emmanuel atakurikiranywe ariwe Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, bakaba basanga ari akarengane [36] Me Ayifayi Augustin avuga ko ikirego bagitanze kuri bombi muri police, kuba nyuma harakurikiranywe umwe, ntibyabazwa uregera indishyi, kuko ibyo yagombaga gukora yabikoze. [37] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko kuba Muzatsinda yarakurikiranywe wenyine Nyirantakirutimana Espérance ntakurikiranwe, nta karengane babibonamo, ko kandi kuba atarakurikiranywe, bitagira Muzatsinda Emmanuel umwere.

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [38] Ingingo ya 21, igika cya 2, y‟Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/9/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina iteganya ko ahanishwa ibihano bivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy‟iyi ngingo umuntu wese wemeye kuba inshoreke. [39] Ingingo ya 249 y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy‟amategeko ahana, iteganya ko ku cyaha cy‟ubusambanyi n‟icy‟ubushoreke, hakurikiranwa uwarezwe n‟uwakoranye icyaha na we. [40] Urukiko rurasanga inyandiko ziri muri dosiye zigaragaza ko Nyirantakirutimana Espérance na Muzatsinda Emmanuel bari barakurikiranywe n‟Ubugenzacyaha bombi baregwa icyaha kimwe cy‟ubushoreke, bakaza no gukorerwa inyandiko mvugo y‟ifunga nkuko bigaragara muri dosiye y‟Ubugenzacyaha, bakaba baranakurikiranywe no mu Bushinjacyaha ku rwego rwo UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 137

Page 165

mu Rukiko rw‟Ibanze rwa Nyarugunga ubwo babazwaga nk‟uko bigaragara kuri cote 66- 69, n‟ubwo Nyirantakirutimana Espérance yaje kurekurwa by‟agateganyo, ariko nawe yari yatangiye gukurikiranwa. [41] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 249 y‟Itegeko Ngenga N°01/2012/OL ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru Muzatsinda Emmanuel ashingiraho ibisobanuro bye by‟uko abakoranye icyaha cy‟ubushoreke bombi bagomba gukurikiranwa, itakurikizwa muri uru rubanza, kuko iryo Tegeko atari ryo ryakoreshwaga icyo gihe icyaha cyakorwaga, hakoreshwaga Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/9/2008 rikumira kandi rihana ihohoterwa iryo ari ryo ryose rishingiye ku gitsina, kandi muri iryo Tegeko, ntahategetswe ko ku cyaha cy‟ubushoreke uwakoze icyaha n‟uwo bagikoranye bombi bagomba gukurikiranwa. [42] Urukiko rurasanga icyo iyo ngingo ivuga gusa, ari uko inshoreke igihe nayo ikurikiranywe, igomba guhanishwa ibihano bimwe n‟ibyo uwo bakoranye icyaha yahanishijwe. [43] Urukiko rurasanga kandi niyo bombi baba bagomba gukurikiranwa, bitavuga ko iyo umwe adakurikiranywe, uwakurikiranywe agomba kuba umwere. [44] Byongeye kandi, hashingiwe ku Itegeko Nº59/2008 ryo ku wa 10/9/2008 ryavuzwe haruguru, Ubushinjacyaha bwari bufite uburenganzira bwo gukurikirana uwo bushatse bukamuregera Urukiko nk‟uko byateganywaga n‟ingingo ya 43 y‟Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha ryakoreshwaga igihe icyaha cyakorwaga, aho iyo ngingo yahaga uburenganzira busesuye Ubushinjacyaha kuri dosiye bwabaga bwashyikirijwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 138

Page 166

n‟Ubugenzacyaha, burimo no kudakomeza gukurikirana uregwa mu gihe busanze atari ngombwa. [45] Urukiko rurasanga rushingiye ku bimaze kuvugwa, kuri iyi ngingo nayo nta karengane kabayemo. C. Kumenya niba Muzatsinda Emmanuel ataragombaga gutegekwa guha Umutesi Afisa indishyi kandi barashakanye ku ivangamutungo risesuye [46] Ku bijyanye n‟uko Muzatsinda Emmanuel avuga ko atagombaga gutegekwa guha Umutesi Afisa indishyi kandi barashakanye ku ivangamutungo risesuye, Urukiko rurasanga iyo ngingo nta shingiro ifite, kuko Umutesi Afisa yaregeye izo ndishyi ashingiye ku ngingo ya 131 y‟Itegeko Nº13/2004 ryo ku wa 17/05/2004 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y‟imanza z‟inshinjabyaha ryakoreshwaga igihe yatangaga ikirego cy‟indishyi, kubera akababaro yatewe n‟icyaha umugabo we Muzatsinda Emmanuel yamukoreye Urukiko rukakimuhamya, ikibazo kiramutse kinabaye cyaba mu irangiza ry‟urubanza ariko ibyo ntibibuza kuba uwakorewe icyaha yabiherwa indishyi. [47] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Umutesi Afisa na Muzatsinda Emmanuel baravanze umutungo, ibyo bidakuraho icyaha Muzatsinda Emmanuel yamukoreye ngo bityo binamukureho n‟indishyi, ikindi kandi, nta ngingo n‟imwe yagaragaje ivuga ko uwakoreye icyaha umwe mu bashyingiranywe adaha uwagikorewe indishyi z‟akababaro zijyanye n‟icyaha yamureze kikamuhama. [48] Urukiko rurasanga no kuri iyi ngingo nta karengane kabayemo. UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUZATSINDA 139

Page 167

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [49] Rwemeje ko ikirego cya Muzatsinda Emmanuel cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z‟akarengane urubanza RPA0250/12/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n‟Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, nta shingiro gifite.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 140

Page 168

RWANDA LAW

REPORTS

ENGLISH VERSION

Page 170

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION ........................................ 1 HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL(1) .................... 23 SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 33 SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL .................................. 57 RRA v. RUHANDO ................................................................. 77 PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA ............................ 97 PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA ..................................... 117

Page 172

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

NTIHEMUKA Emmanuel

UWIMANA Gisèle

iii

Page 173

MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Supreme Court Judge

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

RUTAZANA Angeline : Secretary of the Committee Inspector of Courts

Me BAGABO Faustin : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts DUSHIMINAMA Claudine : Prosecutor at National Level

GIRANEZA Clémentine : President of Primary Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : President of High Court

iv

Page 174

Me KAYIHURA Didas : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge at Commercial High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge at High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Supreme Court Judge RUBANGO K. Epimaque : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : Juge at Intermediate Court

Page 175

PREFACE Esteemed readers, This Volume IV [2017] is the last to be published in the year 2017. Throughout this year, we were pleased to receive your favourable comments indicating that the Law Report reaches you and is of great importance in your daily activities. This volume contains seven (7) cases including two (2) civil cases, one (1) of special procedure, two (2) commercial cases and two (2) criminal cases. Please be reminded that the published cases can be easily and quickly accessed on the website of the judiciary: http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do. Prof. Sam RUGEGE Chief Justice

vi

Page 176

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court cited under the heading below:

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2017] 4 RLR

vii

Page 177

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY

INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 96(3)…………………………………………………………...6 Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4/6/2003 as it was amended and complemented up to 13/8/20008, articles 201(1) and (2)………………………………………………………………..80 Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, articles 53 - 61…..…………………………………………………....6 Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 247 and 249…………………………………………11 Organic Law Nº51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 160…………………………………………………………………….36 Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, articles 76, 8(2) and 52(3)………..26 Law N°83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, article 2(1)…………………………………………………………….6 Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article14……………………………………………………………...36 Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 2 and 129……..26 Law N°59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender- based violence, articles 2(4°) and 21(2°)…………….119 viii

Page 178

Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, articles 8 and 47…………36 Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, articles 26, 27, 28(4) and 29…………………………………………………….80 Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on direct taxes on income, article 11……………………………………………………………..80 Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 65……………………………………………..119 Law N°41/2001 of 19/09/2001 on compensation for victims of accidents involving injury caused by motor vehicles, article 9(1)……………………………………………………………………60 Presidential Order No31/01 0f 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 23……………………………………………………………..60 Commissioner General rules Nº001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income, article 2………………………………………………...80 Organic - Law Nº16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts, article 51……………………………………………………………..99 Law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 43…………………………………………...…119 Law Nº42/1988 of 27 October1988 instituting the preliminary title of civil code book I, articles 198, 199 and 200……………60

ix

LIST OF STATUTES

Page 179

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Democratic Green Party of Rwanda (DGPR) v. Government of Rwanda, RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 8/10/2015................................................................................6 Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva, ICTR (Appeal Judgment), Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, 14 December 2011, para. 697......................................................100 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para. 171.................................................................................100 Prosecutor v. Mucic et al., ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195......................................100

x

Page 180

SUBJECT INDEX Arbitration – Scope of arbitration contract – It is not regarded as if arbitrators ruled beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement when they rule on the late interest, as far as both parties agreed that the arbitrators will examine the issues contained in the claimant and defendant’s submissions, especially that late interests were requested for in the plaintiff’s submissions – Law N°005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, articles 8 and 47.

SORAS

ASSURANCES

GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd…………………………………………33 Civil procedure – Death of one of the spouse who is a party to a claim against his/her partner – The party who is responsible to continue the proceedings in case of opposing interests between spouses including another party – In order for a person to file a claim, he/she should have interest which should remain valid until the trial of the case – In case of death of one of the spouses, the property is owned by the surviving spouse ex officio, which results in the extinction of the related proceedings – The right to acquire the property entails the accomplishment of the duty attached to it therefore the acquirer becomes responsible to continue the proceedings against the remaining opponent even in case he sued him/her jointly with her/his deceased spouse – Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 2 and 129 – Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial xi

Page 181

regimes, donations and successions, articles 76, 8(2) and 52(3). HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL(1)……23 Commercial procedure – Civil action for damages – Insurance contract – The applicability of the principle according to which the criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding – Even though the principle according to which the criminal proceeding takes precedent over civil proceeding is of public order, this is not enough for it to be applied in any case, because pursuant to the law, the damages referred to must be originating from the offence – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 14 – Law Nº51/2008 of 09/09/2008 relating to organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 160.

SORAS

ASSURANCES

GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd…………………………………………33 Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Admissibility – Condition for admissibility of the petition for authentic interpretation of the provision of the law – The petitioner must beforehand demonstrate either his/her personal interest, interest of the one(s) s/he is representing who is/are incapable to file the petition on their own, to file it in public interest, the existence of the judgments or administrative decisions related to a matter of public interest which are conflicting in the interpretation of the legal provision or that the law contains ambiguous words which can lead to conflicting interpretation and it is in public interest that those words be clearly construed. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….1 xii

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 182

Authentic Interpretation of laws – Inadmissibility – The petition for the authentic interpretation is inadmissible if it relates to a pending case or that which has not yet exhausted the ordinary procedures of appeal. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….1 Authentic Interpretation of laws – Summoning of the Government in the petition for the authentic interpretation of laws – Whenever there is a petition for the authentic interpretation of laws, the Government should be summoned to submit its opinion. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….1 Authentic Interpretation of laws – Law applicable in the procedure of the hearing of the petitions relating to the authentic interpretation of laws – The provisions of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court relating to petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a treaty, an international agreement or a law apply. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….1 Authentic Interpretation of laws – Legal effect – The authentic interpretation does not only have a binding force on the petitioner but rather it even binds the third party and it can be referred to in future without making another authentic interpretation of that same law. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….2 Authentic Interpretation of laws – The role of the Rwanda Bar Association – The Rwanda Bar Association has the power to examine the requests for the authentic interpretation of the laws it receives and decide whether xiii

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 183

the authentic interpretation is needed or not, and if necessary it can revise it before submitting it to the Supreme Court and its role continues until the Court has heard the petition and it appears to give its opinion – The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 96(3). Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….2 Authentic Interpretation of laws – The decision of the Rwanda Bar Association – The decision of the Bar Association regarding the admissibility of the request for the authentic interpretation submitted through it, is non- appealable. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….2 Authentic Interpretation of laws – Issues which must be established in the authentic interpretation by the Court – While making the authentic interpretation of laws, the Court must establish whether the application of the law can lead to a conflict in its interpretation; is there misapplication or misinterpretation of the law to the extent that it does not reflect the motivation for its enactment or falls short of solving social problem for which it was enacted and it must interpret the law or its provisions in case there is ambiguity in its literal words and also give an extensive interpretation of the law in case it is apparent that it is silent on some aspects which leads to lacunae in its application. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION………………….2 Criminal Law – Command responsibility – There is command responsibility when a commander knew or could have known that his/her subordinates are about to commit an xiv

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 184

offence and omitted to neither prevent it nor punish them in the aftermath. PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA………….97 The basis of command responsibility – It does not rely on the crime committed by his/her subordinates, rather on the failure to carry out his/her duty as a superior and to exercise control properly. PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA………….97 The person liable of command responsibility – There is command responsibility even in case the person held liable was not officially appointed. PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA………….97 Cohabitation – Living as cohabitants permanently – It is qualified as cohabitation, considering the period they spend together, with effect of being considered by neighbours and others as spouses, without taking into account the length of that period, but their cohabitation must be accompanied by the facts leading to believe beyond doubt that those persons live together as wife and husband – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 247. PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA………………..117 Criminal procedure – Discretion of the prosecutor to prosecute – The fact that one of the cohabitants was not prosecuted, does not release the prosecuted co-offender from his criminal liability – Law Nº13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 43. PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA………………..117 xv

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 185

Damages – Determination of damages resulting from the accident caused by motor vehicles – Damages for economic loss – Beneficiaries of damages for economic loss – Damages for economic loss are awarded to the persons under legal responsibility of the deceased as well as other persons under his/her support as long as they prove it – Law N°41/2001 of 19/09/2001 on compensation for victims of accidents involving injury caused by motor vehicles, article 9(1). SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL……………...57 Damages for moral prejudice – Calculation of moral wrong damages – Minimum wage – Moral wrong damages are calculated on the basis of legally minimum wage – Presidential order No31/01 0f 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 23. SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL……………...57 Damages resulting from criminal liability between spouses – It is not forbidden to order one of the spouses to pay his/her partner moral damages resulting from criminal liability, even if they live under the community of property regime. PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA………………..117 Tax law – Assessment without notice – The necessary documents annexed on the tax declaration – Assessment without notice is applied in case the tax declaration was not accompanied with all necessary documents provided for by the Commissioner General rules – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 28(4) – xvi

RWANDA LAW REPORTS

Page 186

Commissioner General rules Nº001/2007 of 15/06/2007, article 2. RRA v. RUHANDO…………………………………...77 The rate applied in the assessment without notice – In case of assessment without notice, the legally provided rate used in presumptive tax regime is the one applied – Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on direct taxes on income, article 11. RRA v. RUHANDO…………………………………...77 The time framework for tax assessment – RRA has the right to rectify the documents of tax declaration, but failure to do so within the period provided for by the law, that right ceases – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, articles 26 and 27. RRA v. RUHANDO…………………………………...77

xvii

SUBJECT INDEX

Page 188

PROCEDURAL CASES

Page 190

CASE RELATING TO SPECIAL

PROCEDURE

Page 192

1

Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/SPEC/00001/2017/SC – (Rugege, P.J., Mugenzi, Kayitesi R., Kanyange, Mukamulisa, Gatete, Ngagi, Karimunda and Muhumuza, J.) April 28, 2017] Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Admissibility – Condition for admissibility of the petition for authentic interpretation of law – The petitioner must beforehand demonstrate either his/her personal interest, interest of the one(s) s/he is representing who are incapable to file the petition on their own, to file it in public interest, the existence of the judgments or administrative decisions related to a matter of public interest which are conflicting in the interpretation of the legal provision or that the law contains ambiguous words which can lead to conflicting interpretation and it is in public interest that those words be clearly construed. Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Inadmissibility – The petition for the authentic interpretation is inadmissible if it relates to a pending case or that which has not yet exhausted the ordinary procedures of appeal. Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Summoning of the Government in the petition for the authentic interpretation of laws – Whenever there is a petition for the authentic interpretation of laws, the Government should be summoned to submit its opinion. Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Law applicable in the procedure of the hearing of the petitions relating to the authentic interpretation of laws – The provisions of the Organic Law N° 03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining

Page 193

the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court relating to petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a treaty, an international agreement or a law apply. Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Legal effect – The authentic interpretation does not only have a binding force on the petitioner but rather it even binds all persons and it can be referred to in future without making another authentic interpretation of that same law. Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – The role of the Rwanda Bar Association – The Rwanda Bar Association has the power to examine the requests for the authentic interpretation of the laws it receives and decide whether the authentic interpretation is needed or not, and if necessary it can revise it before submitting it to the Supreme Court and its role continues until the Court has heard the petition and it appears to give its opinion – The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 96(3). Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – The decision of the Rwanda Bar Association – The decision of the Bar Association regarding the admissibility of the request for the authentic interpretation submitted through it is non-appealable. Constitution – Authentic Interpretation of laws – Issues which must be established in the authentic interpretation by the Court – While making the

authentic interpretation of laws, the Court must establish whether the application of the law can lead to a conflict in its interpretation; is there misapplication or misinterpretation of the law to the extent that it does not reflect the motivation for its enactment or falls short of solving social problem for which it was enacted and it must interpret the law or its provisions in case there is ambiguity in its literal words

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2

Page 194

and also give an extensive interpretation of the law in case it is apparent that it is silent on some aspects which leads to lacunae in its application. Facts: The amendment of the Constitution of Rwanda of 2003 in 2015 vested the Supreme Court with the authority to make authentic interpretation of laws and also regulated that any interested citizen can request for the authentic interpretation of laws through the Rwanda Bar Association. Accordingly the Bar Association on several occasions submitted to the Supreme Court the citizen’s requests for the authentic interpretation of laws, consequently it was summoned to appear and enlighten the Court about those petitions. The Bar Association requested the Court to postpone the scheduled hearing so that the Supreme Court makes an authentic interpretation of article 96 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, in a bid to determine the role of the Rwanda Bar Association in the submission and hearing of the petition for the authentic interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court admitted the petition of the Bar Association and summoned the Government in that hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the Government of Rwanda requested the Court to first examine the basis upon which the Government is summoned in the petitions regarding the authentic interpretation of laws because summoning the State in those cases were not provided for. In its explanations regarding the provision requested to be authentically interpreted, the Bar Association states that it’s ambiguous to the extent that it can be construed in two different ways. On the one hand it can be perceived as if Rwanda Bar Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 3

Page 195

Association is a channel through which a petition for the authentic interpretation of the laws goes through without any other formalities; in that case it would imply that the Bar cannot refuse to submit to the court the petition it receives. On the other hand it is likely to be construed that the Bar Association has a role to play in the petition submitted through it, so that only petitions containing ambiguous provisions are the ones submitted to the court, and if necessary it gives advice to those who submit through it the petitions for the authentic interpretation of laws when it deems the authentic interpretation unnecessary. For the Government, its opinion is that in making the authentic interpretation of paragraph 3 of the above mentioned article, the Supreme Court should declare that the Bar Association has the capacity to reject, admit or to revise the petitions it receives and be summoned to enlighten the court on those petitions. Held: 1. Whenever there is a petition for the authentic interpretation of laws, the Government should be summoned so that it gives its opinion, since it is in a better position to know the ratio legis for the enactment of that law and its summoning should not be considered as making it a party to the petition, rather it is in the spirit of providing useful opinion which may assist the Court in the authentic interpretation of the laws.

2. Due to the great importance of the petition for the authentic interpretation, in the absence of a specific law regulating its procedure, the provisions of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court relating to petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a treaty, an international agreement or a law are the ones to be applied because all these petitions are of

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4

Page 196

public interest and are adjudicated on the first and last instance by the Supreme Court.

3. Authentic interpretation does not only bind the petitioner but it binds even the third party and it can be referred to in future without making another one for that same law.

4. The Rwanda Bar Association has the power to examine the requests for the authentic interpretation of the laws it receives and decide whether the authentic interpretation is needed or not, if necessary it can revise it before submitting it to the Supreme Court and its role continues until the Court hears the petition and it appears to give its opinion. The decision of the Bar Association regarding the admissibility of the request for the authentic interpretation submitted through it is non-appealable.

5. The petitioner must beforehand demonstrate either his/her personal interest, interest of the one(s) s/he is representing who is/are incapable to file the petition on their own, to file it in public interest, the existence of the judgments or administrative decisions related to a matter of public interest which are conflicting in the interpretation of the legal provision or that the law contains ambiguous words which can lead to conflicting interpretation and it is in public interest that those words be clearly construed.

6. The petition for the authentic interpretation is inadmissible if it relates to a pending case or that which has not yet exhausted ordinary procedures of appeal.

7. While making the authentic interpretation of the law, the Court must establish whether the application of the law can lead to a conflict in its interpretation, is there misapplication or misinterpretation of the law to the extent that it does not reflect the motivation for its enactment or falls short of solving social Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 5

Page 197

problem for which it was enacted and it must interpret the law or its provisions in case there is ambiguity in its literal words and also give an extensive interpretation of the law in case it is apparent that it is silent on some aspects which leads to lacunae in its application. Petition with merit. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 96(3). Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, articles 53 - 61. Law N°83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, article 2(1). Cases referred to: Democratic Green Party of Rwanda (DGPR) v. Government of Rwanda, RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS, rendered by the Supreme Court on 8/10/2015. Authors cited: Reginald Parker, Administrative Interpretations, University of Miami Law School, 5U. Miami L. Rev.533 (1951). Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, Cuba 27 /8/- 7/9/1990. John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012).

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6

Page 198

John F. McCarthy, The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. Judgment I. SUMMARY OF FACTS [1] The Rwanda Bar Association on numerous occasions have been submitting to the Supreme Court petitions for the authentic interpretation of some of the provisions of laws requested by the citizens through the Bar Association as set forth in article 96 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. Later on the Bar Association received summons from the Supreme Court, to appear in the court hearings scheduled on 31/01/2017, to enlighten the Court on those requests for the authentic interpretation. [2] In that regard, the Bar Association wrote to the Chief Justice requesting that the hearing of the petition for the authentic interpretation submitted by the citizens through the Rwanda Bar Association which was scheduled on 31/01/2017 be postponed, for the Supreme Court to make first an authentic interpretation of article 96 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, so that the role of the Rwanda Bar Association in the filing and hearing of the petitions requesting for the authentic interpretation of the law be determined. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 7

Page 199

[3] The petition was examined in the hearing of 05/04/2017, Counsel Bagabo Faustin and Basomingera Alberto representing the Rwanda Bar Association while the Government of Rwanda was represented by State attorney Rubango K. Epimaque. Before the commencement of the hearing State Attorney Rubango requested that the court first examine the basis for summoning the Government in the hearings of the petitions for the authentic interpretation of the law. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES Whether the Government of Rwanda should not have been summoned in this case. [4] State Attorney Rubango Epimaque, submits that the summoning of the Government in petitions relating to the authentic interpretations of the law is not provided for by the laws. He further states that summoning the Government in matters which falls under special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is only exercised in the petitions regarding the constitutionality of the laws. He goes on to adduce that even when the authentic interpretation was done by the parliament, the Government was not required to give opinion.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [5] As averred by the State Attorney, neither the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 nor the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides for the summoning of the Government in the hearing of the petition relating to the authentic interpretation.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8

Page 200

Nevertheless the summoning of the Government in extra ordinary cases is a usual trend albeit not being provided for by the law. One of the examples is in the hearings of the cases relating to the constitutionality of the laws. Before the amendment of the Constitution in 2015 the summoning of the Government in such cases was not provided for. The Supreme Court decided to begin summoning the Government because of its role in the enforcement of the law and its knowledge of the purpose for the enactment of the law1. [6] Bearing in mind the role of the Government highlighted above, the Court finds that whenever it is seized by a petition for the authentic interpretation of the law, the Government should be summoned to appear to give its opinion on that petition, since it is the one in a better position to know the motive for the enactment of that law. Its summoning should not be viewed as making it a defendant, intervener or a forced intervener but it is in the context of giving an opinion which can assist the Court in the authentic interpretation of the law. The petition for the authentic interpretation is a special case, which is of public interest, thus the opinion of the State Attorney is of paramount importance. [7] The Court finds that it is not only the summoning of the Government in the petition for the authentic interpretation of the law which is not provided for by the laws but also the procedure for their hearing is not provided for. In absence of the law regulating the procedure of these petitions and also considering the importance of the petitions for authentic interpretation, the

1 See Judgment RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS regarding the interpretation of the constitutional provision rendered by this Court on 8/10/2015. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 9

Page 201

Court finds that the provisions relating to petitions seeking to declare unconstitutional a treaty, an international agreement or a law of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court should be the ones applied. [8] The similarity among all these petitions is that they are all of public interest and are heard on the first and last instance by the Supreme Court. As is the case for the petitions relating to the unconstitutionality of the laws or provisions, when authentic interpretation is done, it does not only have a binding force on the petitioner but also binds all persons and it can be relied upon in future on a similar issue without making another authentic interpretation on the same law. This opinion concurs with that of Reginald Parker, whereby he states that “[…..] the court, in deciding a question of law which lends itself to several constructions, interprets the law with binding force, not only for the parties involved in the litigation that gave rise to the decision, but also for the future”2. Determining the role of Rwanda Bar Association in the filing of the petitions. [9] Explaining about the provision for which the authentic interpretation is requested, Advocate Basomingera, representing the Rwanda Bar Association states that article 96 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 is ambiguous to the extent that it can be perceived in two ways. On the one hand, it can be perceived as if Rwanda Bar Association is a medium through which requests for the

2 Reginald Parker, Administrative Interpretations, University of Miami Law School, 5U.Miami L.Rev.533(1951).

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10

Page 202

authentic interpretation of the law pass through without any other formalities. In that case it would imply that the Bar cannot refuse to submit to the court the petition it receives. That would mean that the Bar Association has no role in the examination of the requests for the authentic interpretation done by the Supreme Court. [10] On the other hand, he states that the provision can be construed that the Bar Association must have a hand in the requests submitted through it, in such a way that requests concerning ambiguous provisions are the only ones submitted to the Court, and if necessary it offers advice to those who submitted their requests for the authentic interpretation, when it finds the authentic interpretation not necessary because the law on which that request is based is clear. [11] Counsel Basomingera gave an example of the request it received from Banque Populaire du Rwanda (BPR Ltd), whereby it drafted a summary of the facts and it also demonstrated its analytical approach. He concludes by requesting the Supreme Court to explicitly clarify the role of the Rwanda Bar Association in the process of authentic interpretation. [12] Counsel Bagabo Faustin also representing the Rwanda Bar Association submits that the Bar was summoned to plead and moreover a party litigates the facts s/he can defend. He goes on to state that the issue to determine is whether the Bar Association has the discretion to reject a request for authentic interpretation, in case it finds the provision of the law in contention not ambiguous and the ground on which it can base on to reject that request. He wonders if there should exist a Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 11

Page 203

remedy for a citizen whose petition has been rejected by the Bar Association on the ground that there is no ambiguity. [13] He furthermore argues that among the requests received by the Rwanda Bar Association most of the issues are related to the cases in which the applicants were party and the position of the Bar Association is that the authentic interpretation should not be requested in relation to a lawsuit since it is not a remedy by way of appeal rather it is a matter of general public. [14] He concludes by praying that in case the Court declares that the Bar Association has the capacity to initially examine the requests it receives and decides whether to admit or reject it, that decision should be final lest it becomes a lawsuit and the procedure of submitting such requests through the Bar Association would lose credibility. [15] State Attorney Rubango avers that members of the Bar Association have different interpretations of the article requested to be authentically interpreted, some argue that the Bar Association does not have the power to reject a matter submitted to it by the citizen whilst others argue that the motive for the lawmaker to provide for such matters to firstly go through the Bar Association was because as an organ with legal professional members it has to first assess whether it is necessary to submit them to the Supreme Court, dismiss or revise them. [16] In his concluding remarks, he declares that the opinion of the Government of Rwanda, is that in making the authentic interpretation of article 96 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, the Supreme Court should declare that the Rwanda Bar Association has the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12

Page 204

capacity to reject, admit or revise the requests it receives and to be served with summons to appear and elaborate where necessary. Otherwise if the Supreme Court declares that the Rwanda Bar Association has no power to revise or reject the requests, it would not be conceivable how the Bar Association would be served with summon to appear and give explanations on the matter it is not convinced of. He also affirmed that according to the analysis they made, they found that after the power to make authentic interpretation of the law has been vested with the Supreme Court, there will be a lot of issues because people may use it as case delaying tactic.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [17] The authentic interpretation of laws is provided for in article 96 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. That article provides that: “the authentic interpretation of laws is done by the Supreme Court. Authentic interpretation of laws may be requested by Cabinet or the Bar Association. Any interested person may request for an authentic interpretation of a law through the Bar Association. In case of conflict between the languages in which a law was published in the Official Gazette, the language in which that law was adopted prevails”. [18] The Bar Association contends that the article mentioned in the previous paragraph creates ambiguity in determining the role of the Bar Association in the petitions requesting for the authentic interpretation of the laws submitted through it by any interested person. As indicated in article 96 of the Constitution mentioned above, any interested person has the ability to request for the authentic interpretation, nonetheless it has to be Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 13

Page 205

requested through the Bar Association. A person is not allowed to independently submit his or her request to the Supreme Court. The Bar Association seeks to get clarification on its role when the authentic interpretation is requested through it. The role of the Bar Association in the petition submitted to the Supreme Court must be viewed from the angle of the duties of its members as laid down in the law establishing the Bar Association and also emphasized by other principles governing the profession of Advocates alongside with examining the motive of entrusting the Bar Association with the obligation of receiving and submitting a petition of Citizen to the Supreme Court. [19] Article 2(1o) of the Law No83/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the Bar Association in Rwanda and determining its organization and functioning, stipulates that an Advocate is a person in the legal profession charged with assisting and representing litigants before administrative entities, courts and other decision-making organs. He/she may prepare and present his/her submissions before such institutions. He/she may also counsel, mediate litigants and draft private deeds; [……]. This corresponds with the statements of the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Havana Cuba which established the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Particularly litera 13 of those principles declared that Lawyers have a duty of advising their clients as to their legal rights and obligations, and as to the working of the legal system in so far as it is relevant to the legal rights and obligations of the clients.3

3 “[…] the duties of lawyers towards their clients shall include: Advising their clients as to their legal rights and obligations and as to the working of the legal system in so far as it is relevant to the legal rights and obligations of

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14

Page 206

[20] The request of any interested person is submitted through the Bar Association purposely because it’s an institution composed of legal professionals. The role of the Bar Association in regard to that request must be consistent with the professionalism expected of it with the aim of serving justice and also rendering assistance to who seek it. Therefore the Bar Association cannot be taken as an institution meant only to transmit a message like a post office and disregard its fundamental duty of serving justice. [21] In accordance with the provisions of article 96 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, The Court finds that it would be meaningless for the requests to be submitted through the Bar Association and the latter does not make any assessment of them. This would be tantamount to allowing anybody who desires to request for the authentic interpretation in the Supreme Court to do so. If it happens to be the case, then it would be in conflict with the legislative intent of regulating the submission of petitions through the Bar Association and it would create a loophole which could be exploited by those who may want to request for unnecessary authentic interpretation with the intention of delaying cases, those who might use it as a tactic for indirectly lodging an appeal or requesting for that authentic interpretation in an unprofessional way which would make it complicated for the Court to examine the matter. [22] The Supreme Court finds that in case a request for the authentic interpretation of the law has been submitted through

the clients”. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, Cuba 27 /8/- 7/9/1990. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 15

Page 207

the Bar Association, it must critically assess whether that authentic interpretation is undoubtedly necessary. When it finds the authentic interpretation not necessary because the law or the provision requested to be interpreted is clear, it notifies the applicant and if need be it counsels him/her. In case the Bar Association decides to reject the request, that decision is final. As an organ of legal professionals when it finds the petition with merit, if necessary it can revise it before being submitted to the Supreme Court, so that the Court examines a clear and an understandable issue relating to authentic interpretation. The role of the Bar Association does not end there, rather it continues until the Court has heard the petition and it appears to give its opinion. [23] Pursuant to the reasons stated in the previous paragraphs, the Supreme Court finds that the Rwanda Bar Association has the capacity to examine the requests for the authentic interpretation of the law, and to decide whether that authentic interpretation is necessary or not and if it finds it necessary then it submits it to the Supreme Court. Conditions for the admissibility of the petition for the authentic interpretation. [24] There is a difference between authentic interpretation of the laws and the ordinary interpretation of the law. Authentic interpretation is carried out in a special way by the people legally authorized to do so, and the ambiguous law is interpreted. John M. Huels put it in these words: “[….] there is a special form of interpretation that officially and authoritatively resolves the meaning of a doubtful law. This is called "authentic interpretation" and may only be made by the legislator or one to whom he has entrusted the power to interpret the law

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16

Page 208

authentically […].”4 John F. McCarthy on his part states that “authentic interpretation is an interpretation that is imposed in an obligatory manner, or authoritatively, by a public person possessing this power”.5 Therefore this cannot be likened with the ordinary interpretation of laws which can be made by the Judge who has encountered an issue requiring interpretation in the case without necessitating the lodging of an independent claim. [25] Due to the nature of the authentic interpretation as explained in the two preceding paragraphs, the Supreme Court finds it necessary to put in place guidelines to facilitate those who wish to submit petitions for authentic interpretation and which can also be used by the Bar Association or the Court in examining those petitions. These are the following guidelines: The petitioner must initially demonstrate the interest s/he, or those s/he is representing who cannot submit the petition on their own, have in the requested authentic interpretation or if s/he filed the petition in public interest. S/he must demonstrate the existence of judgments or administrative decisions related to a matter of public interests that are conflicting in the interpretation of the legal provision.

4 John M. Huels, Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Laws, The Jurist 72 (2012), accessed on http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/juristcu72&di v=29&id=&page 5 John F. McCarthy, The canonical meaning of the recent authentic interpretation of canon 230.2 regarding female altar servers, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, January 1995. Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 17

Page 209

A petition can also be admitted if the applicant demonstrates that the law contains ambiguous words which can lead to a conflict in interpretation and it is in public interest that those words are clearly interpreted. However, a petition is inadmissible if it relates to a pending case or if that case has not yet exhausted the ordinary procedures of appeal. [26] Notably, depending on the issue at hand, in making the authentic interpretation of the law the Court must determine: a) whether the application of the law can lead to a conflict in its interpretation, b) whether sometimes there is misapplication or misinterpretation of the law to the extent that it does not reflect the purpose for its enactment and falls short of solving a social problem it was meant to solve. The Court must also a) interpret the law or its provisions in a case where there is ambiguity in its literal words, b) to give extensive definition of the law in case it is apparent that its silence on some aspects leads to lacunae in its application. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [27] The Supreme Court admits the petition submitted by the Rwanda Bar Association. [28] Declares that in accordance with article 96(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, the Rwanda Bar Association has the capacity to admit, reject or revise the request it receives. It should also be summoned to appear in the Court to give clarifications on that petition.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18

Page 210

[29] Declares that the Government of Rwanda must be served with summons to appear in the petitions relating to authentic interpretation. [30] Declares that in the screening of the petition relating to the authentic interpretation, the provisions in paragraph 25 and 26 of this judgment should apply.

Re RWANDA BAR ASSOCIATION 19

Page 212

CASES IN MERITS CASES RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Page 214

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL (1) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0009/14/CS (Mugenzi, J., Gatete and Karimunda, J.) February 3, 2017] Civil procedure – Death of one of the spouses who is a party to a claim against his/her partner – The party who is responsible to continue the proceedings in case of opposing interests between spouses in a case which includes another party – In order for a person to file a claim, he/she should have interest which should remain valid until the trial of the case – In case of death of one of the spouses, the property is owned by the surviving spouse ex officio, which results into the extinction of the related proceedings – The right to acquire the property entails the accomplishment of the duty attached to it therefore the acquirer becomes responsible to continue the proceedings against the remaining opponent even in case he sued him/her jointly with her/his deceased spouse – Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 2 and 129 – Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, articles 76, 8(2 ) and 52(3). Facts: Gahongayire, the spouse to Mirimo, filed a case to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge whereby she requested the invalidation of the sale contract of the house concluded between Mirimo and Habiyakare, because it was sold without her prior consent. This Court nullified the contract and ordered the house to be reintegrated in the community property of Gahongayire and 23

Page 215

Mirimo and that it should be managed by Mirimo who has the obligation to pay back 80,000,000Frw of the price of the house to Habiyakare. Mirimo and Habiyakare lodged an appeal to the High Court alleging that Gahongayire was aware of the conclusion of the contract and that the house was sold in the interest of the household, and therefore, they prayed to Court to declare the contract valid or if not so, the family of Gahongayire and Mirimo be ordered to pay the current value of the house at the time of the proceedings to Habiyakare. The appealed Court upheld the ruling and ordered that Habiyakare should be paid 80,000,000Frw of the price of the house agreed upon in the contract and that Gahongayire could not be held liable for the contract she did not conclude. Habiyakare appealed to the Supreme Court whereby he sued Mirimo and Gahongayire alleging that the property was sold in the interest of the household in order to reimburse the loan that was granted to Mirimo by BCR and that only the name of Mirimo was registered on the land title. He alleged in addition that if the Court finds otherwise, he would be awarded the equivalent amount of the house as determined by the valuation report. Meanwhile, Habiyakare initiated another claim to the Commercial Court stating that when they concluded a sale contract; the goodwill was also transferred to him. However, this court transferred the case to the Supreme Court for trial jointly with his appeal. While the trial of the case was still pending, Mirimo died and the issue to know the person who should succeed the case after the decease arose. On this issue, Habiyakare states that

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 24

Page 216

according to him, Gahongayire has been entitled to the entire property, therefore she should be qualified to represent the heirs of Mirimo, especially that her claim consisted of the reintegration of the property into the community property, while the counsel for Gahongayire alleges that it is inadequate for her to represent Mirimo given that they have conflicting interests and that the succession is not yet open because the law provides that the surviving spouse is entitled to the entire property and the succession is postponed to his/her death or remarriage. Therefore, the case ought to proceed between the existing parties in exclusion of Mirimo. Held: 1. In order for the party to initiate a claim, he/she should have interest which should remain valid until the trial of the case because in contrary, the proceedings become extinct, therefore, the fact that Gahongayire no longer has interest to pursue the claim she filed against Mirimo about their property because after his death, she has been entitled to the entire property in accordance with the Law and this entailed the extinction of the proceedings between them.

2. The entitlement to the property entails the obligation thereto; therefore the hearing of the case should proceed between Habiyakare and Gahongayire who defended conflicting interests even before the decease of Mirimo. The hearing of the case shall proceed between the existing litigants. Court fees suspended.

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL(1) 25

Page 217

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016 governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions, articles 76, 8(2) and 52(3). Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 2 and 129. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] On 26 June 2008 Mirimo Gaspard entered into a sale contract of the house located on plot No4593/Kicukiro with Habiyakare Robert, on 80,000,000Frw deposited on Mirimo’s account open in BCR (I&M Bank) in order to pay the loan he owed this bank. Gahongayire, the spouse of Mirimo, filed a case to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge whereby she requested the invalidation of that contract alleging that the house was sold without her knowledge. [2] In the judgment RC0249/12/TGI/NYGE, the Court invalidated the contract and ordered the house to be reintegrated among the property of Gahongayire and Mirimo who has to manage it after reimbursement of its cost amounting to 80,000,000Frw to Habiyakare. [3] Mirimo and Habiyakare appealed respectively to the High Court alleging that Gahongayire Winnifrida was aware of the conclusion of the said contract, therefore, she should not request its invalidation, rather, the contract should remain valid

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 26

Page 218

because the house was sold in the interest of the household, and that, if not so, the family of Mirimo and Gahongayire should jointly pay the current equivalent value of the house amounting to 347,782,150Frw as determined by valuators. [4] In the course of the deliberation of the judgments RCA0566/012/HC and RCA0581/012/HC, the Court upheld the ruling and in contrary that Habiyakare should be paid 80,000,000Frw agreed upon in the contract (article 263 CCB.III), and that Gahongayire could not be held liable of a contracts he was not a party to. [5] The High Court explained that nothing indicates that Gahongayire was aware of the concluded contract and that the house was sold in the interest of the household, rather, it was done by Mirimo with the intention to embezzle family assets as shown in cases in which Gahongayire participated whereby she requested the cancellation of collateral over the said house to secure the payment of the loan she had no knowledge. The Court explained in addition that Habiyakare should be reimbursed 80,000,000Frw of the cost indicated in the contract and that Gahongayire should not be held liable to pay because she was not part of the contract. [6] Habiyakare appealed to the Supreme Court, whereby he sued Mirimo and Gahongayire, and meanwhile, he filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge (RCOM0852/14/TC/NYGE) stating that in the course of the purchase of the stated house on the amount of 80,000,000Frw, “the goodwill” was also included on the amount of 36,000,000Frw, but the Commercial Court transferred the case to the Supreme Court in order to be joined to the case RCAA0009/14/CS. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL(1) 27

Page 219

[7] Concerning the grounds of appeal, Habiyakare alleged that the judge should have confirmed that the property was sold in the interests of the household because it was spent to pay back the loan owed to BCR which was granted to fund the family activities and that he bought the house without knowledge that it belonged to the family because only the name of Mirimo was registered on the title. He states that in case the court finds otherwise, he be awarded 347,782,150Frw which is the value determined by the valuation report in compliance with article 310 of CCB.III. He also requested to be paid 3,000,000Frw in damages which include 2,000,000Frw for being dragged into lawsuits and 1,000,000Frw for counsel fees. [8] Concerning the objection of inadmissibility of the claim raised by Gahongayire because parties lost the case for similar grounds before the Intermediate and High Court, the Supreme Court decided on 19 February 2016 that the objection lacks merit and it decided to resume the hearing. The case was heard on 22 November 2016 and 14 December 2016 whereby it examined the issue about the person who should continue the proceedings after the decease of Mirimo who was a party. Habiyakare was represented by Counsel Munyangabe Henry Pierre while Gahongayire was represented by Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase and Niyomugabo Christophe. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE Determination of how the hearing of the case should proceed after the death of Mirimo Gaspard. [9] Counsel Munyangabe Henry Pierre for Habiyakare states that after the death of Mirimo, Gahongayire was entitled the

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28

Page 220

right to entire property and this is the reason why she should be qualified to represent the heirs of Mirimo, especially that her request concerned the reintegration of the property into the community property. They request that one of the two potential solutions be referred to for handling the issue, the first one being to confirm the validity of the contract and the second being the reintegration of the property into the assets of Mirimo who is represented by Gahongayire, the latter being obliged to fulfill the duty of Mirimo to pay back the equivalent value of the asset in dispute to Habiyakare. [10] Counsel Rutabingwa Athanase and Niyomugabo for Gahongayire, state that it is inadequate for Gahingayire to represent Mirimo because they have conflicting interests in this case. They add that the succession is not yet open because the law provides that the surviving spouse is entitled to the entire property and succession is conducted after his/her death or remarriage, therefore the hearing of the case should continue for the present parties in exclusion of Mirimo.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016, governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions provides that where dissolution of community property occurs due to death of one of the spouses, the property is owned by the surviving spouse until succession execution1”.

1 This is also what is provided for by the 1st paragraph, litera 1 of article 76 of the Law No27/2016 of 08/07/2016, governing matrimonial regimes, donations and successions.

HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL(1) 29

Page 221

[12] Concerning the time of succession execution, article 52, paragraph 3 of the aforementioned law, provides that succession for spouses opens when they both decease or in case one of them remarries, unless otherwise provided by law. [13] The court finds therefore that, pursuant to both complementary provisions, after the death of Mirimo, Gahongayire who was legally married to him in a community property regime, was entitled to the entire property of Mirimo (assets and liabilities) and the fact that Gahongayire is alive and not yet remarried, the opening of succession is precluded, therefore the heirs of Mirimo cannot be summoned to pursue the case in his lieu. [14] The Court finds however that article 129 of the Law No21/2012 of 16/04/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that “when a case is not yet ready to be decided and the death of one of the parties is brought to its attention, the court summons those persons having the status to continue the proceedings”. These persons should not be perceived as heirs only, rather even any other person with such status can be considered. [15] The Court finds that, given that the succession of Mirimo is impossible as long as his spouse Gahongayire is still alive, and not yet remarried, and being the one who was entitled to entire property of Mirimo as recalled above, it is understandable that she should be the one qualified to continue the proceedings in lieu of Mirimo who died, but it arises the issue that the interests of Gahongayire in the case conflict with those of Mirimo who is also one of the parties against whom she filed the claim.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30

Page 222

[16] The Court considers however that, since the subjects of the claim Gahongayire pursued against Mirimo would be taken from the property of Mirimo, and given that this entire property was entitled to Gahongayire, the latter has no interest to pursue the claims she had against Mirimo, because as provided for by article 2 of the Law No21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, in order for the plaintiff’s claim to be accepted, he/she should have interests2. This entails that this interest should remain valid until the adjudication of the case, otherwise the case follows its fate. [17] The court find therefore that, the fact that Gahongayire has no longer the interest to pursue the claim she filed against Mirimo in respect of the property given that she was entitled to the entire property of Mirimo in accordance with the law after the latter died; this led to the extinction of the proceedings. [18] Concerning the issue of conflicting interests in the case between Habiyakare and late Mirimo, the Court finds that the case should proceed between Habiyakare and Gahongayire who succeeded Mirimo given that she was entitled to his entire property as explained above, because the entitlement to the property entails obligations thereto. In addition, the case should proceed between them as they had opposing interests even before the death of Mirimo.

2 The said provision states that a claim cannot be accepted in court unless the plaintiff has the status, interest and capacity to bring the suit. HABIYAKARE v. GAHONGAYIRE ET AL(1) 31

Page 223

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [19] Decides that the case between Gahongayire Winnifrida and Mirimo Gaspard came to an end due to death of Mirimo; [20] Orders that the claims Habiyakare Robert had against Mirimo Gaspard on one hand and Gahongayire Winnifrida on the other hand will be pursued against Gahongayire in this case; [21] Orders that the hearing on the merit of the case concerning the appeal of Habiyakare and Gahongayire Winnifrida will resume on 11 April 2017.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32

Page 224

SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd [Rwanda – RCOMAA0020/16/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Kanyange and Ngagi, J.) October 21, 2016] Commercial procedure – Civil action for damages – Insurance contract – The applicability of the principle according to which the criminal proceeding takes precedent over civil proceeding – Even though the principle according to which the criminal proceeding takes precedent over civil proceeding is of public order, this is not enough for it to be applied in any case, because pursuant to the law, damages referred to must be originating from the offence – Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 14 – Law Nº51/2008 of 09/09/2008 relating to organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 160. Arbitration – Scope of arbitration contract – It is not regarded as if arbitrators ruled beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement when they rule on the late interest, as far as both parties agreed that arbitrators will examine the issues contained in the claimant and defendant’s submissions, especially that late interests were requested for in the of plaintiff’s submissions – Law N°005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, article 8 and 47. Facts: TROMEA Ltd concluded an insurance contract with SORAS Ltd to cover fire and theft hazards especially theft likely to be committed in TROMEA’s store. Afterwards, 33

Page 225

TROMEA’s minerals were stolen from its store and consequently basing on the insurance contract, it wrote to SORAS Ltd requesting for compensation. Both parties failed to reach an amicable agreement and TROMEA Ltd referred the case to arbitration which decided that SORAS Ltd must pay the value of the stolen goods, late interests and damages for breach of contract. SORAS Ltd was dissatisfied with that decision and appealed to the Commercial High Court, which also found the appeal without merit. SORAS AG Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the Commercial High Court rejected its appeal on the ground that it never raised the principle according to which “criminal proceeding stays civil proceeding” before the arbitration tribunal while that principle was raised. It further argues that according to that principle, the arbitrators had to stay the hearing of the civil action as long as the hearing of the criminal case with which it relates, has not yet been closed, because this principle is of public order. Another ground of appeal is that the Court erred in law whereby it held that SORAS AG Ltd did not provide any ground for the cancellation of the award which ordered it to pay compensation for the stolen goods. It also demonstrated that the demands of TROMEA Ltd are contrary to the law because they are not provided for by the insurance contract. Therefore the decision awarding late interests and damages for breach of contract to TROMEA Ltd was made beyond the scope of the contract. In its defense, TROMEA Ltd argues that the principle according to which "criminal proceeding stays civil proceeding" cannot apply to this case because it has no link with the subject matter, because the claim was aimed at requesting for damages

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34

Page 226

resulting from insurance contract instead of those originating from the offence. Regarding the misinterpretation of article 47 of the law No005/2008 relating to the scope of the arbitration contract, TROMEA Ltd explains that damages awarded to it are not contrary to the insurance contract because if SORAS Ltd has paid on time, he wouldn’t have incurred a loss. It also filed a cross appeal requesting for payment of compensation for all losses incurred, procedural fee and counsel fee. In response to the cross appeal, SORAS states that it cannot comment on it because the hearing is not yet in merit stage. Held: 1. Regarding whether the principle according to which “criminal proceeding stays civil proceeding” was raised for the first time at appeal level, this is not true, as it is demonstrated in the award.

2. Thought the principle of “criminal proceeding stays civil proceeding” is of public order, this is not enough for this principle to be applied in any case, because pursuant to the law, damages referred to must be originating from the offence, whereas the claim instituted in the arbitration tribunal was aimed at requesting for damages resulting from the insurance contract. Therefore the principle cannot be applied in this case.

3. Given that both parties agreed that the arbitrators will examine the issues contained in the claimant and defendant submissions, and that it is clear that in the submissions of TROMEA Ltd, late interests were requested, the arbitrators did not go beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. Appeal has no merit. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 35

Page 227

Cross appeal has merit in part. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article14. Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, articles 8 and 47. Organic Law Nº51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, article 160. No case was referred to. Authors cited: Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS et Adrien MASSET, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, 2006, Larcier, p.203. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE

This case originates from a contract covering fire and [1] theft insurance concluded between SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd (herein referred to as SORAS AG Ltd) and TROMEA Ltd on 03/01/2014, especially theft likely to be committed in TROMEA’S store. On 11/11/2014, TROMEA Ltd discovered that 14 tons of minerals worth 263,735USD were stolen from its store. Consequently basing on the mentioned contract, on 21/11/2014, TROMEA Ltd wrote to SORAS AG

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36

Page 228

Ltd requesting for compensation of the stolen minerals, but due to disagreement between the parties the compensation did not materialize.

Basing on that insurance contract TROMEA Ltd took [2] the matter to the arbitration. The arbitrators awarded that SORAS AG Ltd should pay to TROMEA Ltd the value of the stolen items worth 173,236,343Frw, 12,992,726Frw for late interests and 5,000,000Frw as damages for breach of contact. SORAS AG Ltd appealed against the award to the Commercial High Court which rendered the judgment on 17/12/2015, whereby it found the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd without merit.

SORAS AG Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court on the [3] ground that the Commercial High Court erroneously interpreted the principle which states that “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding”. He argues that, instead of linking that principle to the demands of SORAS AG Ltd, the Court held that SORAS AG Ltd did not raise that principle either before or during the hearing in the arbitration tribunal. Furthermore SORAS AG Ltd argues that the panel of arbitrators should have stayed the hearing of the civil case till the criminal one is adjudicated, because that principle is of public order and a party may raise it at any stage of the case. Again SORAS AG Ltd argues that, the Commercial High Court erred in law whereby it held that SORAS AG Ltd did not provide any ground for the cancellation of the award which are provided by article 47 of the Law relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, while it demonstrated that the demands of TROMEA Ltd are not provided for by the insurance contract, thus, those demands are contrary to articles 20 and 22(2) of the specials insurance conditions. Therefore the decision awarding SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 37

Page 229

late interests and damages for breach of contract to TROMEA Ltd is beyond the scope of the contract. It states that foregoing ground is provided for by article 47(c) of the above stated Law.

The case was heard in public on 26/04/2016, whereby [4] SORAS AG Ltd was represented by Counsel Nkurunziza François while TROMEA Ltd was represented by Counsel Bakashyaka Gérardine.

After hearing of the arguments of each party, the Court [5] found that there is the divergence of both parties on the applicability of the principle according to which “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” in the case relating to insurance contract covering theft. Counsel Nkurunziza argued in addition that there is a criminal case being heard by the Primary Court of Kagarama without giving details in order to establish its existence.

On 10/06/2016, the court ruled that the hearing of this [6] case will proceed after both parties have submitted to the court detailed explanations of the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” and its applicability in the case relating to insurance contract. It ordered also that SORAS AG Ltd should produce evidences on the existence of the criminal case pending before the Primary Court of Kagarama which it alleges to be interconnected to the one submitted to arbitration tribunal. It should produce its case number, offences prosecuted and the accused persons.

The hearing was reopened on 06/09/2016, all parties [7] represented as earlier. Each party submitted to the court what it was requested of. In addition, SORAS AG Ltd submitted to the Court the copy of judgment of the criminal case

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38

Page 230

RP0643/14/TB/KMA pronounced by the Primary Court of Kagarama on 29/07/2016, whereby Habiyakare Eric and others were accused of stealing minerals from the store of TROMEA Ltd. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES A. APPEAL OF SORAS AG Ltd 1. Whether SORAS AG Ltd did not raise the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” before Commercial High Court.

Counsel Nkurunziza François Xavier, representing [8] SORAS AG Ltd argues that the Commercial High Court refused to examine its appeal on the basis that SORAS AG Ltd did not raise the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” before the panel of arbitrators, either at the beginning or during the hearing moreover SORAS AG Ltd raised it as it is evident on page 9, paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of the award. Counsel Nkurunziza François Xavier states that through the objection raised before the panel of arbitrators, SORAS AG Ltd indicated that, if that principle is not respected, there will be contradictions between the decision of the judge in criminal case and the decision in the civil case relating to compensation and damages but that the panel of arbitrators overruled the objection. He criticizes the High Commercial court that instead of examining his claim, it misconceived the facts which led to the ruling that the grounds of SORAS AG Ltd appeal lack merit.

The counsels for TROMEA Ltd adduced that the [9] principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 39

Page 231

proceeding” was raised by SORAS AG before the arbitration tribunal but that, upon its examination it was found with no merit.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT

As regards to establish whether SORAS AG Ltd [10] requested the panel of arbitrators to stay the hearing of the case on compensation, filed by TROMEA Ltd so that the decision may first be taken in the criminal case relating to the theft committed in TROMEA Ltd’s store, which was being tried by Primary Court of Kagarama, the Court finds that SORAS AG Ltd requested the panel of arbitrators to respect the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” and the panel examined this objection as it is demonstrated from page 8 to page 10 of the award.

2. Whether the fact that the panel of arbitrators did not consider the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” renders the award void.

Counsel Nkurunziza François Xavier who represents [11] SORAS AG Ltd, argues that the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” on which he bases the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd means that, if there is a claim for damages originating from a criminal case, the civil court hearing the case on damages stays that hearing and waits for the decision of criminal court to avoid the contradictions in both decisions. He explains that, if there is a criminal case, the case for damages originating from that specific crime is stayed whenever the crime is not yet confirmed because if afterwards the offence is not established, while damages originating from it

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 40

Page 232

were awarded, it would be a serious problem which would lead the concerned parties into subsequent litigations. Thus, in order to avoid such consequences, it is necessary to stay the civil case until the decision in criminal case is pronounced.

Counsel Nkurunziza, states that the Commercial High [12] Court ruled that the appeal of SORAS AG which is based on article 47(2b) of the Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters has no merit, while he demonstrated before it that the award of the arbitrators disregarded the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” whilst it is of public order. Had that principle been respected, the hearing of the case on compensation before the arbitration should have stayed and await the decision in criminal case on the issue of establishing whether the theft really happened, the perpetrators and the value of stolen items.

Furthermore, he states that as this principle is of public [13] order, a party may raise it at any stage of the case even for the first time at the appeal level. He further states that the default by the Commercial High Court to examine the ground of appeal he submitted before it is a serious error because disregarding it affects the performance of the insurance contract concluded between SORAS AG Ltd and TROMEA Ltd. This is due to the fact that the contract includes an exclusion clause which stipulates that SORAS AG Ltd is not liable in case of theft committed by a person who is related to the insured.

He further argues that the arguments of the [14] representatives of TROMEA Ltd that it was enacted in France laws demarcating the scope of the application of the principle of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 41

Page 233

cannot be applied in this case, rather existent Rwandan law should apply because those enacted in France engage itself and that does not invalidate the principle. He insists that the arbitrators should have stayed the hearing until the decision of the primary court of Kagarama on the criminal case is taken due to interconnectivity which exists between both cases.

The counsel for TROMEA Ltd argues that the principle [15] of “criminal proceeding takes precedence over civil proceeding” raised by SORAS AG Ltd should not be considered because it does not relate to the subject matter in this case, especially that the case submitted to arbitration was aimed at requesting that SORAS AG Ltd to honor the insurance contract it concluded with TROMEA Ltd, (article 18 of special insurances conditions). They find that the subject matter is not about damages originating from the crime (action en réparation d’une infraction) and that parties in both cases are not the same. They further argue that TROMEA Ltd did not sue for damages in that criminal case nor does it have a criminal case with SORAS AG Ltd, even none of their employees is being prosecuted in that case. Thus, there is no reason that SORAS AG Ltd could not pay.

They continue explaining that the contract TROMEA [16] Ltd concluded with SORAS AG Ltd provides for the liability of each party in case of a sinister. TROMEA Ltd fulfilled its obligations, therefore SORAS AG Ltd should also fulfill its obligations without complaints by requesting to wait for a case, which it does not even know when it will be disposed off, and if it does not accept the amount it was asked to pay it is up to it to request for a counter expertise. They further argue that the arguments of SORAS AG Ltd that the thieves were not known

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 42

Page 234

is not true because the arbitrators examined this issue and found that, they were not employees of TROMEA Ltd but of TOPSEC. Therefore since the thieves had no employment contract with TROMEA Ltd (it does not pay their contribution for pension scheme to RSSB or paying for them taxes to RRA), there is no reason that the arbitrators should have stayed the hearing of TROMEA Ltd case which relates to damages originating from the insurance contract because it has no link with the criminal case.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT

The principle of “criminal cases have precedent over [17] civil case” raised by SORAS AG Ltd is provided for by article 14 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure which states that “Proceedings in civil action shall be suspended until the criminal case is finally adjudicated if the criminal action was instituted before or in the course of civil proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law determining the organisation, functioning and competence of courts”.

Article 47(2º b) of the Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 [18] relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, which SORAS AG Ltd bases its appeal, provides that, “An arbitral award decided by an arbitration may be set aside by the court specified in article 8 of this Law only if; the award is in conflict with the public security of the Republic of Rwanda”.

Regarding the ground of appeal of SORAS AG Ltd that [19] its claim should be admitted because the award of the arbitrators is contrary to public order, given that they refused to stay the SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 43

Page 235

hearing of the civil case submitted by TROMEA Ltd to await for the decision in criminal case relating to the theft which took place in the store of TROMEA Ltd, the Court finds that the statement of the counsel for SORAS AG Ltd that the principle of “criminal cases have precedent over civil case” is of public order has merit. This is emphasized by the opinions of Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS and ADRIEN MASSET, in their book Manuel de procédure pénale1 who base on the decisions of the judgments rendered by the court of cassation in Belgium2 whereby it was decided that this principle is of public order therefore parties to the case cannot avoid its applicability and even the judge hearing the civil case relating to damages should raise it on his own motion. These scholars explain that the principle of “criminal case has precedent over civil case” being of public order is respected when all requirements are met; which implies that a civil court on its own motion can stay the hearing till the criminal case is over even though no party raised the objection.

Another issue to be examined is whether the principle of [20] “criminal case takes precedence over civil case” being of public order is enough to be applied to this specific case. The examination of this issue dictates the determination of the nature of civil claim provided in article 14 of the Law Nº30/2013 of

1 Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS et Adrien MASSET, Manuel de procédure pénale, 2e édition, 2006, Larcier, p.203, D. Quant au caractère de la règle du criminel tient le civil en état, les auteurs ci-hauts cités disent “qu’elle est d’ordre public”. Si les conditions sont remplies, la surséance doit être prononcée même d’office et ce, à peine de nullité. p.203, D. 2 La Cour de Cassation a admis que la règle du criminel tient le civil état est “d’ordre public”, voir Cass., 23/03/1992, Pas., I, p. 664 ; et que "les parties ne peuvent pas y renoncer et le juge civil doit même surseoir d’office ", voir Cass., 01/02/1951, Pas., I, p.357.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 44

Page 236

24/05/2013 mentioned above and the answer is found in article 160 of the Law Nº51/2008 of 09/09/2008 relating to organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts which provides that “Civil claims arising out of a criminal offence are those instituted to recover damages for loss caused by the offence. A person aggrieved by the offence or his/her beneficiaries shall have the right to file a civil suit for damages”.

Regarding the filing of the claim for damages resulting [21] from an offence, article 161 of the above mentioned law states that, “A claim for damages arising out of a criminal offence may be heard at the same time by the same court hearing the criminal case. It may also be instituted separately”. That principle of the criminal case staying the hearing of the civil case is applied if: 1. The criminal case was filed before the civil suit 2. The criminal case was filed during the proceedings of a civil suit. In such a situation, the same judge who hears the civil suit shall also hear the criminal case.

3. During the course of civil proceedings, there arises a criminal incidental proceeding, the judge who hears the civil suit shall also try that criminal incidental proceeding. However, where the criminal incidental proceeding herein above mentioned in the point 3 of the paragraph 2 of the present article is within the jurisdiction of a superior Court, both the civil and the criminal matter shall be forwarded together to that Superior Court for joint trial. A Criminal claim shall not cause stay of a civil claim if they are not interconnected. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 45

Page 237

On the issue of determining whether the claim for [22] damages submitted by TROMEA Ltd to the arbitration tribunal is the one provided for by article 160 mentioned above, the documents in the case file indicate that the claim which TROMEA Ltd submitted to arbitration tribunal aimed at requesting for the damages resulting from the insurance contract it concluded with SORAS AG Ltd, the income lost if it had sold the stolen minerals, late interest because SORAS AG Ltd delayed to pay, damages resulting from breach of contract and other various damages

The claim of TROMEA Ltd as explained above is [23] different from the claim for damages provided by the previously mentioned article 160 because even though the offence of theft was committed and suspects were prosecuted in criminal case, the Court finds that damages which TROMEA Ltd sued for in the arbitration tribunal does not originate from the offence of theft committed against TROMEA Ltd rather they result from the insurance contract it concluded with SORAS AG Ltd. Thus, the provisions of article 14 of the Law Nº30/2013 of 24/05/2013 mentioned above which states that proceedings in civil action shall be suspended until the criminal case is finally adjudicated, cannot be applied to this case, because as decided by the arbitration tribunal in its award there is possible contradictions between decisions taken by both courts since damages claimed before commercial case relate to insurance contract.

The Court therefore finds that the fact that the principle [24] of "criminal cases have precedent over civil case" is of public order, this sole nature is not itself enough for this principle to be applied in any case, because pursuant to article 160 mentioned

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46

Page 238

above, damages referred to must be originating from the offence, which is different in this case.

Also the legal scholars, Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann [25] JACOBS and ADRIEN MASSET mentioned above concur with the above motivation, whereby they state that the civil action which obliges the judge who is seized of it separately to stay the proceedings, is that which relates to the criminal case instituted before or during the hearing3.

In accordance with the reasons stated above, the Court [26] finds that the ground of appeal of SORAS AG Ltd lacks merit, because it is not one of the requirements stated by the provision of article 47(2b) of the Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters which is relied on by SORAS AG Ltd to request the quashing of the award of the arbitration tribunal.

3. Whether the demands of TROMEA Ltd exceed what is provided for by the insurance contract.

Counsel Nkurunziza François Xavier representing [27] SORAS AG Ltd states that another ground for the appeal against the decision of the Commercial High Court rejecting to annul the award of the arbitration tribunal is that the court misinterpreted article 47 of the Law Nº005/2008 mentioned above by holding that SORAS AG Ltd did not produce any

3 Quant à la portée du principe du "criminel tient le civil en état", nous lisons sous la plume de Michel FRANCHIMONT, Ann JACOBS et Adrien MASSET, que “l’action civile, qui oblige le juge qui en est saisi séparément à surseoir à statuer, est celle qui est relative à des points qui sont communs à une action publique intentée avant ou en cours de l’exercice”. p.202, C. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 47

Page 239

ground among those provided for by that article for the annulation of the award of the arbitration tribunal, while in its appeal, SORAS AG Ltd indicated the grounds which demonstrated that the award of arbitration tribunal was contrary to the provisions of insurance contract concluded with TROMEA Ltd. Furthermore, he argues that they explained to the Commercial High Court that the demands of TROMEA Ltd are not provided for in insurance contract and are contrary to articles 204 and 225 of special insurance conditions because the award of arbitrators held SORAS AG Ltd liable twice for the same issue, since he was held liable for late interest of 12,992,726Frw and 5,000,000Frw for interests and damages of breach of contract. This implies that the award made was beyond the scope of the provisions of insurance contract. This making of the award beyond the scope of the contract which is provided for in article 47(1 c) of the Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 mentioned above.

Counsel for TROMEA Ltd argue that the argument of [28] SORAS AG Ltd is not true because the award of arbitrators awarding compensation and damages to TROMEA Ltd is not contrary to the insurance contract and that the arbitrators based on articles 20 and 22 mentioned above and denied to award to

4 L’assurance ne peut pas être une cause de bénéfice pour l’assuré, elle ne lui garantit que la réparation de ses pertes réelles, abstraction faite de toute privation de jouissance, de bénéfice ou des intérêts. 5 Si, de mauvaise foi, le Souscripteur ou l’Assuré fait de fausses déclarations, exagère le montant des dommages, prétend détruits ou disparus des objets n’existant pas lors du sinistre, dissimule ou soustrait tout ou partie des objets assurés, ne déclare pas l’existence d’autres assurances portant sur les mêmes risques, emploie comme justification des documents inexacts ou use de moyens frauduleux, l’Assuré est entièrement déchu de tout droit à indemnité pour ce sinistre.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48

Page 240

TROMEA Ltd all damages it claimed for by stating that only the value of stolen items are to be compensated. They continue by arguing that late interest awarded to TROMEA Ltd are grounded because if SORAS AG Ltd had respected the contract and paid within 30 days as specified in article 27 of the “special insurance conditions”, TROMEA Ltd wouldn’t have incurred the loss. Therefore for SORAS AG to have been charged with late interests and damages based on articles 1376 and 1387 of the Law N°45/11 of 25/11/2011 relating to contract, has merit.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT

Article 47 of the Law N°005/2008 of 14/02/2008 [29] relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters, provide that "an arbitral award decided by an arbitration tribunal may be set aside by the court specified in article 8 of this Law only if: the party seeking cassation furnishes proof that: 1°(c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the award which contains

6 The aggrieved party has right to damages from the party failing to perform his/her contractual obligations, unless the claim for damages has been suspended or withdrawn. 7 The aggrieved party has right to damages based on his/her expected interests calculated in accordance with: 1° the loss in the value by the aggrieved party, based on the other party's obligations caused by non- performance or inadequacy; 2° any other loss caused by the breach of the contract, including any other incidental loss; 3° any cost or other loss that the breaching party has avoided by the non-performance of his/her obligations. SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 49

Page 241

decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside.

Regarding the grounds of appeal of SORAS AG Ltd that [30] the award of arbitrators should be nullified because in awarding TROMEA Ltd the interests and damages for breach of contract it was made beyond the scope of the contract, the Court finds that argument groundless because in that award both parties agreed that arbitrators shall examine the plaintiff submissions as well as those of the defendant. It is also obvious in TROMEA Ltd’s submissions as plaintiff that he requested for late interests (see paragraph 55 of the award), and also requested for damages for breach of contract (see paragraph 61), thus arbitrators did not go beyond the scope of arbitration contract because if SORAS AG Ltd was not satisfied the decision on the merit of the case taken by arbitrators, this should not imply that they ruled beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement instead it is apparent that SORAS AG Ltd is confusing arbitration agreement with "special conditions of insurance".

Based on those grounds, the Court finds that the award [31] of arbitrators cannot be quashed because damages and interests were awarded on the request of TROMEA Ltd as stipulated by the arbitration agreement. Therefore, this ground of appeal of SORAS AG Ltd does not also fall within the grounds provided for in article 47(1c) of the Law Nº005/2008 of 14/02/2008 relating to arbitration and conciliation in commercial matters.

4. The cross appeal filed by TROMEA ltd

The counsel for TROMEA Ltd argues that it has been a [32] year and seven (7) months since TROMEA Ltd goods were stolen, but unfortunately SORAS AG Ltd has persistently

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50

Page 242

refused to pay for the compensation. Therefore, they pray the Court to rely on articles 137 and 138 of the Law N°45/11 of 25/11/2011 governing contracts to establish the liability of SORAS AG Ltd for the loss worth 31,182,541Frw incurred by TROMEA Ltd and to pay 2,000,000Frw of procedural and counsel fee.

Counsel Nkurunziza representing TROMEA Ltd states [33] that he cannot comment on the appeal of TROMEA Ltd as the hearing of the case is not yet in merit because the legal issue in this case consists of whether the award of the arbitration tribunal should be nullified.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT

Regarding the loss worth 31,182,541Frw incurred by [34] TROMEA Ltd, the Court finds that this ground of appeal cannot be examined because the Court has not yet heard the case in merit. However, concerning the procedural and counsel fee requested by TROMEA Ltd, the Court finds that because it hired the services of advocates be represented at this level, it is awarded 1,000,000Frw in the court’s discretion because the 2,000,000Frw it requested for is excessive. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

It holds that the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd lacks merit; [35]

It holds that the cross appeal filled by TROMEA Ltd has [36] merit in part; SORAS ASSURANCES GENERALES Ltd v. TROMEA Ltd 51

Page 243

It orders SORAS AG Ltd to pay procedural and counsel [37] fee, all amounting to 1,000,000Frw awarded at this level to TROMEA Ltd.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52

Page 244

CASES IN MERIT

Page 246

CIVIL CASE

Page 248

SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCAA0049/14/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukanyundo and Rugabirwa, J.) November 25, 2016] Damages – Determination of damages resulting from the accident caused by motor vehicles – Damages for economic loss – Beneficiaries of damages for economic loss – Damages for economic loss are awarded to persons under legal responsibility of the deceased as well as other persons under his/her support as long as they prove it – Law N°41/2001 of 19/09/2001 on compensation for victims of accidents involving injury caused by motor vehicles, article 9(1). Damages – Damages for moral prejudice – Calculation of moral damages – Minimum wage – Moral damages are calculated on the basis of legally minimum wage – Presidential order No31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 23. Fact: After the death of Muhumuza that was caused by an accident of a motor vehicle which crashed his motorcycle, both having subscribed for the insurance in SORAS AG Ltd, Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques filed a claim praying the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge to order SORAS AG Ltd to pay them damages for economic loss, moral wrong and reimbursement of fees spent to get various certificates, deposited court fees and counsel fees. SORAS AG Ltd defended that they should not be awarded what they requested for because none of them was under support of the de cujus. 57

Page 249

The Intermediate Court ruled that the plaintiffs depended on the deceased basing on the document issued by Executive Secretary of Gitega Sector, and it ordered SORAS AG Ltd to pay the plaintiffs damages for economic loss, moral wrong, counsel fees and to reimburse them the court fees they deposited. SORAS AG Ltd appealed to the High Court alleging that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for economic loss while they did not deserve them because the certificate which they submitted demonstrating that they were supported by the de cujus is dubious, and in addition to this, that the earning rate should have been calculated on 8% fixed by the National Bank of Rwanda instead of being 4% referred to by ordinary banks. Furthermore, it stipulates that the determination of moral damages would not have been relied on annual net salary of the de cujus because the law provides for legally minimum wage. Umuhoza and his siblings filed a cross appeal stating that moral damages were wrongly computed because the judge omitted to multiply the result by twelve (12). The court found without merit the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd whereas that of Umuhoza and his siblings has merit. SORAS AG Ltd appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court alleging that the Court disregarded the ground of appeal and awarded to the plaintiffs damages for economic loss while they do not deserve them because they were

not supported by the victim; in addition to this, the Court computed moral damages on false rate since it used the earning rate of 8% while at the time of deliberation it was fixed on 7,960%. It also alleges that the court awarded to the respondents moral damages basing on the annual salary of the de cujus while they are calculated on the annual legally minimum wage of 2,500Frw as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58

Page 250

Umuhoza and his siblings alleged that this ground of appeal lacks merit since SORAS AG Ltd does not produce any evidence proving that they are not supported by the de cujus. Held: 1. Damages for economic loss are awarded to persons who are dependents of de cujus but those who do not have the right to claim for maintenance are not excluded as long as they produce evidence that they were supported by the deceased; however the certificate issued by the Executive Secretary of Gitega should not be considered because it does not prove that Umuhoza and his siblings were regularly supported by the de cujus, especially that it does not demonstrate the special reason that would lead him to support them while they had all attained majority age.

2. The earning rate that should be used for computing damages for economic loss should not be examined because those damages were not awarded in this judgment.

3. Moral damages are calculated on the basis of legally minimum wage but due to the fact that the cost of living increases with the raise of the price of necessities which commends the increase of salary and remuneration to meet this inflation; the minimum wage (SMIG) should also increase to 3,000Frw, which amount should be used for awarding those damages to the siblings of the deceased.

4. The procedural and counsel fees are not awarded in case both parties have respectively won the case in part. Appeal has merit in part. The deposited court fees are equal to the expenses of this trial. SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 59

Page 251

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°41/2001 of 19/09/2001 on compensation for victims of accidents involving injury caused by motor vehicles, article 9(1). Law Nº42/1988 of 27 October1988 instituting the preliminary title of civil code book I, articles 198, 199 and 200. Presidential Order No31/01 0f 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 23. No case referred to. Authors cited: Laëtitia Stasi, Droit Civil: Personnes, Incapacités, Famille; Edition Paradigme, Orléans 2007, pp.259-260. Jean Carbonnier, Introduction, les personnes, la famille, l’enfant, le couple, 1ère édition, “Quadrige”, Presses Universitaires de France, 2004, p.799. Yvonne Lambert-Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, système d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, p.267. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This judgment originates from the death of Muhumuza Jean Pierre that was caused by the accident of motorcycle which crushed the motorcar both having subscribed their insurance in SORAS AG Ltd. Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 60

Page 252

Niyoyita Jacques, the siblings of the deceased Muhumuza Jean Pierre filed a claim to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge praying it to order SORAS AG Ltd to pay them damages for economic loss, moral wrong and fees for various certificates, deposited court fees and counsel fees, the total of all requested damages worth 76,754,048Frw. SORAS AG Ltd argued that they should not be given what they request for because none of them was under support of the de cujus. [2] On 07 February 2014, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered a judgment RC0656/13/TGI/NYGE and ruled that the de cujus was the one who supported the plaintiffs basing on the document of 30 July 2013 issued by the Executive Secretary of Gitega sector, whereas concerning damages for economic loss, it declared that it is calculated on the basis of monthly income generated by de cujus worth 499,289Frw and that he passed away at 38 years before retirement. Therefore, it ordered SORAS to pay the plaintiffs 58,726,799Frw for all damages including 57,677,866Frw for economic loss, 748,933Frw for moral wrong and 300,000Frw for Counsel fees as well as 12,000Frw of the court fees they deposited. [3] SORAS AG Ltd appealed against that judgment to the High Court stating that the plaintiffs were awarded the economic loss while they did not deserve it because the certificate issued by the Executive Secretary of Gitega

Sector indicating that they were supported by the de cujus is dubious, and that the earning rate should have been calculated on 8% since it is a rate which is fixed by the National Bank of Rwanda instead of being 4% the ordinary banks uses. Furthermore, it alleges that moral prejudice should not have been based on annual net salary of the de cujus because the law provides for SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 61

Page 253

minimum wage (SIMG). Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques also filed a cross appeal alleging that the moral wrong was mistakenly computed because the judge forgot to multiply the result by twelve (12). [4] On 28 November 2014, that Court rendered the judgment RCA0089/14/HC/KIG whereby it held that the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd has no merit. It held that apart from declaring only that the de cujus was not the one who supported the plaintiffs, SORAS AG Ltd failed to produce evidence to the Court which contradicts the certificate issued by the administration of the Sector submitted to the court, and also that it did not produce the evidence of other grounds of its appeal. Concerning earning rates, SORAS AG Ltd states that it should have been calculated at 8% the rate of BNR instead of 4% of Commercial Banks. [5] The Court found that apart from stating it, SORAS AG Ltd does not indicate the rate which was fixed by BNR at the time of payment, and the accident mentioned in the precedent it submits did not occur at the same time with the one dealt with in this judgment, and that the Presidential order No31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles provides that the rate which is based on must at least equal to the interest rate used by banks, which implies the ordinary banks because it is higher rather than relying on BNR’s which is a particular bank. It furthermore declares that concerning moral prejudice, the Intermediate Court should not have been based on the minimum wage (SMIG) while the salary of the de cujus is well known. In addition, it decided that the cross appeal filed by the respondent at appeal level stating that the calculations were mistakenly done has

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62

Page 254

merit, because timing the result with 12 was omitted. That Court ordered SORAS AG Ltd to give to Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques all damages amounting to 67,465,068Frw which includes 8,987,202Frw of moral wrong, 57,677,866Frw of damages for economic loss and 500,000Frw procedural and counsel fees at the appeal level. [6] SORAS AG Ltd appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court claiming that the Court disregarded the ground of appeal and awarded economic loss to the respondents while they do not deserve it because they were not supported by the victim, and that the Court relied damages on false investment rate since it calculated them at 8% while at the time of trial of the case it was on 7,960%. In addition, it awarded the respondents moral damages on the basis of annual salary of the de cujus while they are based on legally annual minimum wage. [7] On 04 November 2016, the judgment was heard in public and SORAS AG Ltd was represented by Counsel Mukanzigiye Donatille, whereas Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques were represented by Counsel Nzayisenga Charles. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether the siblings of the de cujus have the right on damages for economic loss for which they claim. [8] Mukanzigiye Donatille, the counsel for SORAS AG Ltd argues that the Court awarded damages for economic loss to the respondents whilst they do not deserve them because those damages are awarded to those who have the proof of being dependents of the victim as it is provided for by article 22 of SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 63

Page 255

Presidential Order No31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury due to accidents caused by motor vehicles. She submits that the Court awarded those damages to the respondents on basis of the certificate issued by the Executive Secretary of Gitega Sector which indicates that they were dependents of the de cujus while it should not have been relied on because all respondents had the maturity ages including the one who was an employee and in addition to that, they do not reside in the same sector with late Muhumuza Jean Pierre, therefore the court would not have the basis for confirming that he took care of them, because it is not understandable how the person who resides in Gitega can take care of the one from Rwezamenyo or Nyamirambo. She explains that these kinds of damages are awarded to the surviving spouse and orphans of the de cujus, but the latter did not leave aside any. She further makes clear that they did not carry out the research about the support, but normally someone takes care of persons they live together and where it is clear that he is responsible of that home. [9] Nzayisenga Charles, the counsel for Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques states that this ground of appeal has no merit because there is no evidence which proves that late Muhumuza Jean Pierre was not the one who provided a support to his siblings; and nowhere in

article 22 of Presidential Order mentioned above on which SORAS AG Ltd relies its appeal it is provided that the beneficiaries of damages must be orphans of the deceased or his surviving spouse; and that the case file contains the certificate which proves that late Muhumuza Jean Pierre took care of his siblings. He explains that depending on another person does not imply living with him/her under the same roof or being fed by him.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64

Page 256

OPINION OF THE COURT [10] Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Law N°41/2001 of 19/09/2001 on compensation for victims of accidents involving injury caused by motor vehicles provides that before commencing legal proceedings for compensation, the victim or his legal representatives or, in the event of his death, his dependents; must claim compensation from the insurer responsible for the accident or, to the guarantee fund for motor vehicles, through extra-judicial procedure and submit to it all documents justifying the merits of their application. [11] With regards to damages for economic loss, the interpretation of this provision of law mentioned above implies that the persons who are entitled to request for those damages must be those who were under the responsibility of the de cujus. [12] Concerning the interpretation of “person under support”, article 198 of CCB.I provides that “the obligation of support is that the law imposes on a person to provide the food to another person who is in need”. Article 199 stipulates that “the alimony obligation is paid in cash or in kind”. Article 200 provides that the alimony obligation exists between spouses. It also exists between the father and the mother on the one hand, and their children on the other, and vice versa. That article provides that children also owe food to their ascendants that are in need. This obligation is reciprocal. [13] In its pleadings, SORAS submits that the siblings of the de cujus should not be awarded damages for economic loss because he was not in charge of them. Therefore the certificate SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 65

Page 257

issued by the administration of Gitega Sector indicating that he supported them should not be considered. [14] In article 200 of CCB.I mentioned above, nowhere it is indicated that a person has a maintenance obligation toward his siblings. The Law scholar Laëtitia Stasi also states that there is strictly a direct maintenance of obligation only in a direct line and in relations between parents of the second degree or so, which means grandchildren and grandparents. Among the allies, marriage creates relations between the two families, but the obligation exists only as long as the marriage lasts. She concludes in stating that there is no obligation of maintenance between siblings1. [15] The Law scholar, Jean Carbonnier in his book Droit Civil, les personnes, la famille, l’enfant et le couple also emphasizes the statement of his fellow Laëtitia Stasi mentioned above, that there is no obligation of maintenance between siblings, whereby he states in general that not all humanly blood relationships give rise to the maintenance obligation, but only those to which the law gives rise to the maintenance obligation are those to which the law expressly attaches it. He continues

1 Laëtitia Stasi, Droit Civil: Personnes, Incapacités, Famille; Edition Paradigme, Orléans 2007, pp.259-260. “On ne trouve donc d’obligation alimentaire stricto sensu qu’en ligne directe et dans les relations entre parents du deuxième degré et au-delà (par exemple dans les rapports petits-enfants et grands-parents). Entre alliés, le mariage fait naître des relations entre les deux familles mais l’obligation n’existe que tant que dure le mariage. La liste des obligés est très étroite : l’obligation alimentaire ne joue pas entre frère et sœur”.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66

Page 258

demonstrating that the dietary relationship exists in direct line at all levels, never in collateral line2. [16] Concerning this case, Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques argue that damages for economic loss for which they request, are based on grievance which they suffered by lacking financial support that they were provided by their sibling, Muhumuza Jean Pierre who died in a road accident. They submitted also to the Courts including the Supreme Court the certificate issued on 30 July 2013 by Nkurunziza Idrissa who was Executive Secretary of Gitega Sector which provides that the deceased used to support his relatives. [17] On 19 March 2011, the date the road accident occurred and caused the death of the de cujus named Muhumuza Jean Pierre; Umuhoza Pacifique was 30 years old, Izabayo Sylvie was 26 years old whereas Niyoyita Jacques was 22 years old, which means that all had the majority age. [18] Even though the law provides expressly the debtors of the obligation of providing maintenance to others which means the debtors of alimony as well as beneficiaries, the law scholar Yvonne Lambert-Faivre in her book, Droit du dommage

2Jean Carbonnier, Introduction, les personnes, la famille, l’enfant, le couple, 1ère édition, “Quadrige”, Presses Universitaires de France, 2004, p.799. “Ce ne sont pas tous les rapports de famille humainement reconnaissables qui donnent lieu à l’obligation alimentaire, mais seulement ceux auxquels la loi donnent lieu à l’obligation alimentaire, mais seulement ceux auxquels la loi l’attache expressément. Entre parents, le rapport alimentaire existe en ligne directe à tous les degrés (père et mère et enfants-grands-parents et petits enfants, etc…), jamais en ligne collatérale”. SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 67

Page 259

corporel, in the chapter regarding the payment of damages for prejudice resulting from death caused by the road accident, she advances that those who do not have the right to claim the maintenance are not excluded if they can establish that they were dependents of the deceased. She provides an example of a sibling with disability, a godchild or an orphan3. [19] As far as this judgment is concerned, the Court finds there is a lack of elements of evidence because the certificate issued by the administration of Gitega Sector is qualified to prove that the respondents were regularly maintained by late Muhumuza Jean Pierre and that it does not indicate the reason that led him to support them while they all attained the age of maturity. Therefore there should be demonstrated the material evidence ( like the medical certificates proving whether they are with disability, bank slips, mobile money short message service etc…), which if produced, the court would still have to examine whether they deserve damages for economic loss which they request because basing on the law and the opinions of scholars raised above, there is no legal obligation that Muhumuza Jean Pierre had to support his siblings and if he did so, it should be considered as an ordinary family support. [20] Basing on the reasons stated above, the fact that the document of 30 July 2013 issued by the administration of Gitega Sector is not accompanied with documents provided for by article 9 of the Law N°41/2001 of 19/09/2001 mentioned

3Yvonne Lambert-Faivre, Droit du dommage corporel, système d’indemnisation, 3ème édition, 1996, Dalloz, p.267. “Ainsi ceux qui ne peuvent invoquer une créance alimentaire ne sont pas écartés s’ils peuvent cependant établir qu’ils étaient en fait régulièrement entretenus par le défunt”.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68

Page 260

above proving the merit of the respondents request, the Court finds that damages for economic loss should not be awarded in this judgment, which implies the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd has merit on this ground. [21] Concerning the earning rate of 4% which the High Court used for computing damages for economic loss by arguing that it is the one used by banks, which the Counsel for SORAS AG Ltd criticized stating that it should be 8% fixed by the National Bank of Rwanda (BNR) since it is the average of rates used by the banks operating in Rwanda, the Court finds that it shall not examine this ground of appeal because that rate is used for computing damages for economic loss while this court ruled above that the siblings of de cujus Muhumuza Jean Pierre do not deserve them, given that the Law does entitle them the right to damages for economic loss. b. Determination of the salary on which the computation of damages for moral prejudice as well as other damages that may be awarded shall rely. [22] Mukanzigiye Donatille, the counsel for SORAS AG Ltd states that the High Court awarded moral damages to the respondents by relying on net annual income of the deceased in contradiction of the provisions of article 23 of Presidential Decree mentioned above which stipulates that these damages are calculated on the basis of legally annual minimum wage (salaire minimum interprofessionnel garanti - SMIG), due to the fact that SMIG was not yet legally established by Rwandan Law, among the judgments rendered by Courts including the Supreme Court, a legal position for the minimum wage of 2,500Frw per day according to the common standard of living SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 69

Page 261

of population at that time, the standard of wages and market prices was set. [23] She submits that moral damages should have been calculated as follow: 0.5 x legally minimum wage (SMIG), meaning 0.5 x 2,500Frw x 30 x 12 x 3 = 1,350,000Frw, instead of 8,987,202Frw. [24] She explains that in the judgments which were delivered by the Supreme Court including the judgment RCAA0003/11/CS rendered on 12/10/2012, paragraph 29 and the judgment RCAA0212/07/CS rendered on 09/04/2009, paragraph 28, the amount of 2,500Frw was fixed as SMIG; which implies that it was not fair to base on annual net salary. [25] Nzayisenga Charles, the counsel for Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques argues that SORAS AG Ltd did not produce any evidence which contradicts the basis of the previous courts and that it did not raise a ground as to why the computation of damages should take into account the legal minimum wage (SMIG). Concerning the case laws presented by SORAS AG Ltd, he states that the High Court motivated well that the deceased had a known annual salary, therefore, it should not be based on annual minimum wage, thus, those case laws should not be referred on in this case because the SMIG of 2009 could not be equal to that of 2016, especially that in the judgment which determined the SMIG to be 2,500Frw, the Court relied it on the standard of living without disregarding that there is no law establishing the annual minimum wage in Rwanda.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70

Page 262

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [26] Regarding the salary to be based on for computation of moral wrong damages, article 23(3) of the presidential decree N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 mentioned above provides that: “Compensation for loss of affection in case of death shall only be allocated to the restricted persons listed below and within the limits provided for by this Order: Spouse: 1 X guaranteed annual minimum wage; Parents and legitimate or recognized children: 0,75 X guaranteed annual minimum wage; Siblings: 0,5 X guaranteed annual minimum wage”. [27] According to the analysis of the salary provided in article 23 which is already mentioned above, the Court finds that it is a legally minimum wage called SMIG in French, which is different from the annual income of the victim as it was held by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the appealed judgment. Regarding the amount of SMIG, the Court finds that up to now no law establishing it was enacted but the Supreme Court in the judgment RCAA0202/7/CS, rendered on 09 April 2009, and others cases which referred to it (judgment RCAA0003/11/CS rendered on 12 October 2012 and the judgment RSOCAA0112/10/CS rendered on 15 February 2015), ruled upon its discretion and on the basis of market price that it must be 2,500Frw. [28] However, the Court finds that as the years pass on, the living standard gets higher due to the frequent increase of the price of necessities, as well as the increase of salary and remuneration for the buyers to meet this price variation, SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 71

Page 263

therefore, it finds that even the SMIG should increase and be fixed to 3,000Frw, which is the daily pay of workman. [29] Consequently, basing on the amount of SMIG fixed above, the Court finds that moral damages which should be awarded to three siblings of the deceased must be computed following the formula provided by article 23 of the Presidential Order N°31/01 of 25/08/2003 mentioned above on compensations given to the person who lost a relative due to road accident: 0,5 x SMIG of 3,000Frw x 30 monthly working days x 12 months x 3 siblings = 1,620,000Frw, this implies that each one is awarded 540,000Frw of moral damages. c. Concerning the procedural and counsel fees awarded on the first instance. [30] Mukanzigiye Donatille, the Counsel for SORAS AG Ltd states that the judge awarded 500,000Frw of the counsel and procedural fees, disregarding that its appeal had merit. [31] Nzayisenga Charles, the counsel for Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques argues that the cross appeal submitted to the High Court was based on relevant ground of the clear mistake committed by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge (omission to multiply by 12 months in the calculation), and the prejudice which the plaintiffs of the damages suffered because SORAS was denying to give them damages resulting from the accident which caused the death of their brother. He states that the omission to multiply by 12 was a serious mistake they should not ignore, which is the reason why they appealed against it and damages it was charged did not rely on it, rather, there are other reasons which were relied on in the discretion of the Court.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72

Page 264

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [32] The court finds that, since the High Court examined the cross appeal filed by Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques concerning moral damages and held that it has merit, there is no reason it would not awarded them the procedural and counsel fees, therefore this ground of appeal of SORAS AG Ltd lacks merit. d. Concerning the procedural fees on this instance. [33] Nzayisenga Charles, the counsel for Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques filed cross appeal advancing that the fact that SORAS AG Ltd continues to drag his clients into vexatious litigation, it should give them 1,000,000Frw of moral damages and 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees in addition to those it was ordered to pay by the High Court. [34] The counsel for SORAS AG Ltd states that the defendants should not be awarded damages which they request for, rather, he prays for overturning the case in respect of damages for economic loss and moral wrong, and SORAS be given 500,000Frw of procedural fees and 500,000Frw of counsel fees and be reimbursed 75,000Frw of court fees deposit to the High Court and 100,000Frw to the Supreme Court. [35] Concerning the amount which SORAS AG Ltd requests to be reimbursed, Counsel Nzayisenga Charles states that it should not be awarded them, because if it amicably paid damages before initiation of lawsuits as provided for by the Presidential Order, it would not have been necessary to resort to court of law and hired lawyer’s services. SORAS AG Ltd v. UMUHOZA ET AL 73

Page 265

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [36] The court finds that no party deserves to be awarded the procedural and counsel fees on this instance while each party wins the case in part. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [37] Holds that the appeal of SORAS AG Ltd has merit in part. [38] Holds that Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques should not be awarded damages for economic loss. [39] Orders SORAS AG Ltd to allocate Umuhoza Pacifique, Izabayo Sylvie and Niyoyita Jacques 1,620,000Frw of moral damages, which implies 540,000Frw for each one, in addition to 800,000Frw of the counsel and procedural fees which they were awarded by the two previous courts, all totalling 2,420,000Frw. [40] Overrules the ruling of the judgment RCA0089/14/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court sitting in Kigali on 28/11/2014. [41] Orders that the court fees deposited by SORAS AG Ltd are equal to the expenses of the trial.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 74

Page 266

COMMERCIAL CASE

Page 268

RRA v. RUHANDO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMA0122/12/CS (Rugege, P.J., Mukandamage and Ngagi, J.) April 22, 2016] Tax law – Assessment without notice – The necessary documents annexed on the tax declaration – Assessment without notice is applied in case the tax declaration was not accompanied with all necessary documents provided for by the Commissioner General rules – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 28(4) – Commissioner General rules Nº001/2007 of 15/06/2007, article 2. Tax law – The rate applied in the assessment without notice – In case of assessment without notice, the legally provided rate used in presumptive tax regime is the one applied – Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on direct taxes on income, article 11. Tax law – The time framework for tax assessment – RRA has the right to rectify the documents of tax declaration, but failure to do so within the period provided for by the law, that right ceases – Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, articles 26 and 27. Facts: RRA audited Ruhando and assessed him without notice on the income tax of fiscal years 2008 and 2010 on the ground that he did not attach the list of his creditors on the tax declaration he submitted. He was also charged the value added tax for the fiscal year 2008 with interest. Having not satisfied with the outcome of the audit, Ruhando appealed to the Commissioner General of RRA requesting those taxes to be 77

Page 269

waived. Subsequently, he was informed that his appeal has merit only in regard to the loss arising from the fiscal year 2007. Ruhando appealed to the Commercial High Court which found found his claim with merit and waived the income tax for the fiscal years 2008 and 2010. It also declared that the value added tax paid on input tax in 2008 is equivalent to 73,131,312Frw instead of 56,623,239Frw and ordered RRA to reimburse the counsel fees to Ruhando. RRA appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court held that the assessment without notice was inconsistent with the law, disregarding the fact that RRA has the right to make assessment without notice if the tax declaration made by the taxpayer was not accompanied with all necessary documents including the list of his/her debtors and creditors as provided for by the law. In his defense, Ruhando argues that although the law provides that there are documents which must accompany the tax declaration but it does not specify them nor does it specify the authority to identify them, therefore, the Commissioner General endowed himself the authority which he is not legally entitled to by issuing the directives concerning the handing of the listing, thus he requests the court to rectify it. Another ground of appeal advanced by the RRA is that the Court held that the tax imposed on Ruhando at a rate of 4% of the annual turnover is contrary to the law, ignoring the fact that in case of assessment without notice, the tax cannot be less than the one imposed under presumptive tax regime as provided by the law. Ruhando defends himself by arguing that the taxpayer, who is assessed without notice, is that one with income while he is not obliged to pay tax because of the loss he incurred.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78

Page 270

In addition to the above, the other ground of RRA appeal is that the Commercial High Court disregarded that the value added tax paid by Ruhando should not be considered as paid because RRA could not carry out an audit for that tax period because of the prescription. In his defense, Ruhando states that if a taxpayer makes a tax declaration and the tax administration fails to conduct the audit within the time provided by the law, the declaration of the taxpayer is considered as accurate. Held: 1. Assessment without notice is applied in case the tax declaration was not accompanied with all necessary documents provided for by the rules of Commissioner General. Thus, computing the direct income tax through assessment without notice was in accordance with the law 2. In case of assessment without notice, the legally provided rate which is used in presumptive tax regime is the one applied. Thus, the fact that the tax was imposed on the taxpayer computed at the rate of 4% is in accordance with the law.

3. The RRA has the right to rectify the documents of tax declaration, failure to do so within the period provided for by the law, that right ceases. Thus, the value added tax paid by Ruhando for the fiscal year 2008 must be considered. Appeal has merit in parts. The respondent must reimburse a half of the court fees to the appellant.

RRA v. RUHANDO 79

Page 271

Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 4/6/2003 as it was amended and complemented up to 13/8/20008, articles 201(1) and (2). Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, articles 26, 27, 28(4) and 29. Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on direct taxes on income, article 11. Commissioner General rules Nº001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income, article 2. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] On 02/01/2012, Ruhando Ernest was given the audit report conducted on both direct income tax and value added tax, whereby he was charged the tax amounting to 162,068,634Frw for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. [2] Ruhando Ernest was not satisfied with the outcome of that audit and consequently on 08/02/2012 appealed to the Commissioner General of RRA who on 30/03/2012 replied that his appeal is founded only in regard to the point relating to the loss incurred in the fiscal year 2007 and therefore 11,240,413Frw was deducted from 162,068,634Frw of the tax he had been charged. Thus the unpaid tax remained worth

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80

Page 272

150,828,221Frw for the direct income tax of the fiscal years 2008 (amounting to 62,583,302Frw), 2010 (amounting to 12,701,584Frw) and 2009 (amounting to 8,915,139Frw), and the interests to be computed on the date of payment. With regard to the value added tax of the fiscal year 2008, the Commissioner General stated that the tax which RRA acknowledges to have been paid is 56,623,239Frw instead of 73,131,312Frw. [3] Ruhando Ernest not being satisfied with that decision, appealed to the Commercial High Court. In the judgment RCOM0095/12/HCC rendered on 15/06/2012, the Court found his claim with merit and decided that the direct income tax amounting to 62,583,302Frw and 66,628,196Frw, of the fiscal year of 2008, 2010 respectively is waved. It also held that the input value added tax paid in 2008 amounts to 73,131,312Frw instead of 56,623,239Frw. It ordered RRA to pay 500,000Frw for counsel fees to Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole). [4] RRA was not satisfied with that decision, therefore it appealed against it in the Supreme Court alleging that: a) Concerning the direct income tax of 2008 and 2010 which was levied through the assessment without notice: The Commercial High Court stated that if RRA wishes, the list of creditors may be availed after the declaration date of the tax, without providing legal basis, since as long as the audit has not yet been conducted after the declaration of the taxpayer, the RRA doesn’t have any encounter with the taxpayer to request him or her to produce any document; RRA v. RUHANDO 81

Page 273

In spite the fact that the judge stated that the list may be availed after the declaration, it is not provided for by the law because during the declaration, the list is attached in accordance with the provisions of article 28(4°) of Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as amended and completed up to date, and article 2 of Commissioner General rules No001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income; as amended and completed up to date that list has to be annexed to the declaration; The Commercial High Court wanted to highlight that RRA is not allowed to issue the assessment without notice in case it does not prove the prejudice caused by the fault committed, without demonstrating the provisions of the law which provides it and it disregarded the fact that assessment without notice constitutes another procedure of taxation; b) Concerning the direct income tax which was computed on the rate of 4%, the Commercial High Court disregarded: Article 29(3) of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above provides that in case of an estimated assessment, the amount of tax cannot be less than the tax which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime; Article 11 of the Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 mentioned above, provides that Intermediate

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 82

Page 274

business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover; c) Concerning the value added tax of fiscal year 2008; the Commercial High Court held that RRA has to acknowledge the input value added tax paid during 2008 which amounts to 73,131,312Frw, but it ignored that the tax that RRA acknowledges corresponds to audited months, from March to December 2008. d) Concerning damages, it should not be ordered to pay 500,000Frw of counsel fees while it is obvious that Ruhando Ernest’s claim lacks merit (Accessorium sequitur principale). [5] The case was heard in public on 22/03/2016, RRA represented by Counsel Mugire Joseph while Ruhando Ernest was represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether the computation of direct income tax of the fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through the assessment without notice was legally conducted. [6] Counsel Mugire Joseph argued that the Commercial High Court held that the assessment without notice was contrary to the law, but it disregarded the fact that RRA conducted that assessment basing on article 28(4) of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures which provides that the Tax Administration is entitled to start the estimated assessment procedure when the tax declaration was not accompanied by all necessary documents, because Ruhando Ernest had not availed the list of his creditors as provided for by article 2 of the RRA v. RUHANDO 83

Page 275

Commissioner General rules Nº001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income. He further state that the reason why RRA requests for the list of the creditors, is to get the real figure of the business’s finance status since the debts reduces the taxable income especially that and it is possible to a taxpayer to declare inexistent debts. [7] Nsengiyumva Abel, the counsel for Ruhando Ernest, states that article 28(4) of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, provides that there are necessary documents that accompany the tax declaration but it does not state neither those documents nor the competent person to identify them, thus the issue at stake consisting of establishing the necessary document and its importance in the tax assessment. He states further that in endeavor to determine the importance of that document, the mode of computation of the direct income tax should be considered where article 16 of the Law N°16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income provides that the business profit is the difference between the income and expenses, while article 21 of the same law provides for the requirements for expenses to be considered as deductible. He continues to argue that another ground to prove that the list was not necessary, is the fact that during the audit of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, that list was not

available and the audit was conducted and concluded. In 2008, Ruhando Ernest submitted the declaration which was accepted without being informed about missing documents or that the declaration was incomplete. He further states that in enacting those rules, the Commissioner General endowed himself with the power which he does not legally possess because the law does not endow it to him/her, and even if he was competent to do so, the list was not necessary. Thus if

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84

Page 276

he overstepped his/her power, this should be rectified by the court. He concludes by stating that the list does not reduce the profit rather it demonstrates the names of the creditors, since the profit is indicated by accounts.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [8] Article 28(4o) of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as amended and completed up to date, provides that: “the Tax Administration is entitled to start the estimated assessment procedure when […] 4° the tax declaration was not accompanied by all necessary documents” […]”. [9] Article 2 of the Commissioner General rules Nº001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income1, provides that: “a person whose annual business turnover is twenty million (20,000,000Frw) or more must attach the following annexes to the declaration: 1. Balance sheet; 2. Profit & Loss statement; 3. A table showing depreciation; 4. List of debtors; 5. List of creditors”. [10] The case file demonstrates that Ruhando Ernest was assessed without notice in the fiscal years of 2008 and 2010 for the reason that he did not attach the list of creditors on the declaration of those taxes. On the one hand, RRA argues that the list is a necessary document which must accompany the tax declaration, whereas on the other hand, Ruhando Ernest argues that the list is not a necessary document since the debt he owes to others are indicated in the balance sheet which accompanied the tax declaration, which implies that list can be submitted later

1 These rules has been published in the Official Gazette No12 of 15/06/2007. RRA v. RUHANDO 85

Page 277

in case RRA needs it and it is this reasoning of Ruhando Ernest which was considered by the Commercial High Court. [11] The court found that as provided by article 28(4) of the Law No25/2005 mentioned above, the rule is that the assessment without notice is conducted if the tax declaration was not accompanied with all necessary documents which were explained in article 2 of the Commissioner General’s rules No001/2007 mentioned above and the list of creditors was included in case the business annual turnover is more or equal to 20,000,000Frw. [12] The court finds that since the aforementioned Commissioner General’s rules No001/2007 were published in the Official Gazette2, nothing is likely to prevent from being applied since they are not in conflict with the Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes or income, therefore this implies that Ruhando Ernest had to comply with article 2 of those rules by annexing on the tax declaration the list of his creditors. The fact that the aforementioned Commissioner General’s rules, order the taxpayer to avail the list of his/her creditors, cannot be considered as abuse of powers bestowed to him as held by the Commercial High Court, since he is the one in charge of the daily management of that institution3, especially that the basis

2 The article 201 para.1&2 of the Rwandan Constitution of 4/6/2003 as it was amended and completed up to 13/8/20008, which was in force when that assessment without the notice was carried out, provided for that: “Laws, orders and other regulations of public interest can only enter into force after they have been duly published in accordance with the procedures determined by the law. Ignorance of a law which has been duly published is not a defense […]”. 3Article 21, para.1 of the Law N°08/2009 of 27/04/2009 determining the organization, functioning and responsibilities of Rwanda Revenue Authority

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86

Page 278

of that list is obvious because during the tax declaration it helps to establish the existence of those creditors to clear the doubt of tax evasion since those debts reduces the taxable income as explained by the counsel for RRA. [13] Pursuant to stated reasons, the Court finds that the computation of the direct tax on income of the fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through the assessment without notice was in conformity with the law, therefore the rulings of the judgment RCOMA0095/12/HCC concerning that ground has to be reversed. b. Whether Ruhando Ernest has to be taxed at the rate of 4% of the annual turnover. [14] Counsel Mugire Joseph representing RRA, states that after the Commercial High Court held that assessment without notice was inconsistent with the law, it went further to rule that the tax Ruhando Ernest was imposed on the rate of 4% was also inconsistent with the law disregarding that RRA proved that taxing at the rate of 4% is provided by the law, considering article 29 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures which provides that in case of an assessment without notice, the amount of tax cannot be less than the tax which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime provided for by article 11 of the Law Nº16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income stating that Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover.

(RRA), provides that the daily management of RRA shall be entrusted to its Commissioner General He/she has powers of directing and coordinating daily activities of RRA and shall be answerable to the Board of Directors for the implementation of its decisions, […]”. RRA v. RUHANDO 87

Page 279

[15] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel for Ruhando Ernest argues that RRA bases the tax rate of 4% on article 29 of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above, but that this provision was not respected, since if assessment without notice is applied the tax must not be below 4% taxed basing on presumptive tax regime, which means that assessment without notice is applied to a taxpayer who ought to pay tax whereas for Ruhando Ernest, he is bankrupt, therefore was not obliged to pay tax, except if the tax of 4% is a penalty, which is provided by the law. He further states that paragraph 3 of article 29 mentioned above contains a sentence that “the tax should be paid by considering the presumptive tax regime” while fiscal legislation does not contain an expression “small income”, rather they contain “small enterprises” which is provided in article 2(6) of the Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on the direct income tax. He concludes by requesting the Court to consider the judgment RCOMA0009/11/CS between RRA and Mukagihana Emerthe, rendered on 7/3/2016 by the Supreme Court, which settled the same issue.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [16] Article 29(3) of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above provides that: “[…] in case of an assessment without notice, the amount of taxes cannot be less than the taxes which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime”4.

4 In case of an assessment without notice, the amount of taxes cannot be less than the taxes which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88

Page 280

[17] The last paragraph of article 11 of Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on the direct income tax provides for that “[…] Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover5”. [18] The case file demonstrates that after Ruhando Ernest was assessed without notice for income of fiscal years 2008 and 2010, the Commissioner General, in his reply to the appeal lodged by Ruhando Ernest, confirmed that he must pay the income tax for the fiscal year 2008 amounting to 62,583,302Frw6 which is the equivalent of 4% of 977,864,092Frw which is the annual turnover of that year (Annual turnover rectified), and the income tax amounting to 66,628,196Frw7 for 2010 which is the equivalent of 4% of 1,041,065,567Frw as annual turnover of that year (Annual turnover declared). In addition to that, this rate of 4% is provided for by the last paragraph of article 11 of the Law No16/2005 mentioned above. [19] Through the analysis of aforementioned provisions, the Court finds that, the Legislator provided that the owner of intermediate business is the one who pays the lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover, which means that instead of calculating the exact income, the tax is computed under the presumptive tax regime. Therefore, given that article 29(3) of the Law

5 Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover. 6 62,583,302Frw consisting of 39,114,564Frw of the principal tax + 3,911,456Frw for fines for delay + 19,557,282Frw for penalty for understatement of the tax. 7 66,628,196Frw consisting of 41,642,623Frw of the principal tax + 4,164,262Frw for fines for delay + 20,821,311Frw for penalty for understatement the tax. RRA v. RUHANDO 89

Page 281

No25/2005 mentioned above provides that in case of assessment without notice, the tax cannot be less than the tax which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under the presumptive tax regime, this implying that, since there is no other rate provided by the Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on the direct income tax, RRA had no other means of taxing other than applying the rate of 4% mentioned above.8. [20] Regarding the assertion of Ruhando Ernest that he should not pay the income tax for the above mentioned fiscal years because he incurred loss, the Court finds that, as stated in the letter written by the Commissioner General of RRA in response to his appeal, Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) was exempted from the tax amounting to 11,240,413Frw and it also acknowledges he had incurred a loss of 202,021,082Frw for the fiscal year 2009 in lieu of payment position, this decision being taken after finding his appeal with merit on the ground regarding the loss originating from the fiscal year 2007 which was not carried forward to 2009. Therefore, Ruhando Ernest should advance that loss by arguing that he should not pay the income tax for the fiscal years 2008 and 2010, which was levied through the assessment without notice, while that loss was carried forward to the fiscal year 2009. [21] Basing on stated reasons, the Court finds that Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) being charged with the tax computed on the rate of 4% of the annual turnover through assessment without notice, does not contradict the law, therefore the decision of the Commercial High Court waiving the income tax of the fiscal

8 This law is the one which is applied in the assessment of the direct income tax.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90

Page 282

years 2008 and 2010 amounting to 62,583,302Frw and 66,628,196Frw respectively must be reversed. c. Whether the value added tax amounting to 16,508,073Frw of the fiscal year 2008 should not be considered as paid due to the prescription of its assessment. [22] Counsel Mugire Joseph for RRA, states that the Commercial High Court disregarded the fact that during the fiscal year 2008, RRA acknowledged that Ruhando Ernest paid value added tax amounting to 56,623,239Frw, but RRA did not acknowledge that he paid 16,508,703Frw corresponding to months of January up to April of same fiscal year because it informed him that it cannot acknowledge the tax paid for which it cannot conduct an audit, because the period to do it had was struck by prescription and it therefore held that the value added tax paid by Ruhando Ernest is 73,131,312Frw. Furthermore, he states that the conduct of audit expires within three years and that period is binding on both RRA and the taxpayer, because on the side of RRA, accepting the statements of the taxpayer will have implications while both parties should equally bear consequences. [23] Nsengiyumva Abel the counsel for Ruhando Ernest, argued that with regard to VAT, a taxpayer makes a declaration, and when RRA fails to conduct an audit within due time, the declaration made by the taxpayer becomes final and thus considered as true.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [24] Article 26 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides that: “When the Tax Administration RRA v. RUHANDO 91

Page 283

discovers a miscalculation, an omission, a misrepresentation, an understatement of income or any other error in the tax declaration or an assessment, it has the right to issue an adjusted assessment”. [25] Article 27 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as it has been amended and completed by article 3 of the Law N°74/2008 of 31/12/2008, provides that “In case the tax declaration form is rectified, the Tax Administration sends a rectification note to the taxpayer. The note contains a draft of the adjusted assessment and all the elements leading to the adjusted assessment. The rectification note contains fines determined by the Tax Administration in case of non- compliance with the tax laws […]. The rectification note may be issued in a period of three (3) years, starting from the day of the filing of the tax declaration. A rectification note has to be issued at least on the last day of the three years period. The prescription mentioned in this paragraph is interrupted if the taxpayer has been informed to be audited by the Tax Administration, when there has been an affidavit thereof or by other deeds of acknowledgement by the taxpayer concerning the tax liabilities and all other provisions provided in the other laws […]". [26] In the case at hand, the documents in the file indicate that RRA acknowledges that Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) declared that he paid the VAT amounting to 73,131,312Frw, but the auditors only accepted the VAT payment of 56,623,239Frw due to the fact that the audit for the period of January to April 2008 had been struck by prescription therefore the VAT amounting to 16,508,073Frw for those months is not acceptable as paid.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92

Page 284

[27] The Court finds that as RRA had the right to rectify the tax declaration within three years as provided for by article 27 mentioned above, this implies that it has to bear the consequences for its failure to do so by undoubtedly acknowledging the tax declaration made by the taxpayer. For that reason, RRA has to acknowledge all the input VAT paid by Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) for the fiscal year 2008 which amounts to 73,131,312Frw. [28] Pursuant to stated reasons, the Court finds that the VAT amounting to 16,508,073Frw of the fiscal year 2008 has to be considered as paid by Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) because the failure to conduct the VAT audit for the fiscal year 2008 was not his fault, therefore the decision of the Commercial High Court confirming the payment of the input VAT for the fiscal year 2008 amounting to 73,131,312Frw has to be sustained. d. Whether RRA should be charged with damages. [29] Counsel Mugire Joseph argues that the institution should not be charged 500,000Frw of damages since what it did is provided for by the law, therefore they should be discharged. [30] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel adduces that the previous judge committed no error since it was RRA that dragged Ruhando Ernest in lawsuits.

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [31] The court finds that the Commercial High Court did not make any error in charging RRA damages because it had found that it was RRA which led Ruhando Ernest in lawsuit, thus he incurred expenses paying for the lawyer’s service. RRA v. RUHANDO 93

Page 285

[32] The Court finds however that, at this appellate level, the decision charging damages has to be quashed since it was established that the assessment without notice was in accordance with the law, as motivated above, thus this ground of RRA has merit. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [33] The appeal of RRA has merit in parts; [34] It decides that the judgment RCOMA0095/12/HCC rendered on 15/06/2012 by the Commercial High Court has changed only with regard to the income tax and damages; [35] It decides that computing the direct tax on income for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 amounting to 62,583,302Frw and 66,628,196Frw respectively which was done through assessment without notice on the rate of 4% of the annual turnover, was done in accordance with the law; [36] It orders that the counsel’s fees amounting to 500,000Frw which RRA had been charged is quashed; [37] It orders Ruhando Ernest (Rwatole) to reimburse 50,000Frw equivalent to ½ of the court fees to RRA, because it paid a total of 100,000Frw for the court fees and some grounds of appeal have merit.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94

Page 286

CRIMINAL CASES

Page 288

PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPA0317/08/CS (Kanyange, P.J., Nyirandabaruta and Karimunda, J.) December 17, 2015] Criminal Law – Command responsibility – There is command responsibility when a commander knew or could have known that his/her subordinates are about to commit an offence and omitted to neither prevent it nor punish them in the aftermath. Criminal Law – The basis of command responsibility – It does not rely on the crime committed by his/her subordinates, rather on the failure to carry out his/her duty as a superior and to exercise control properly. Criminal Law – The person liable of command responsibility – There is command responsibility even in case the person held liable was not officially appointed. Facts: The Military Prosecution alleged that ACP Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was among the planners, organisers and perpetrators of genocide committed against Tutsis, where he arrested secret agents of Inkontanyi in 1990, trained and provided guns to Burundian refugees at Nyaruteja and interahamwe at Stade Kamena. He was also prosecuted for complicity in murder committed in different places, when he omitted to rescue people in danger and they consequently succumbed to death. He was furthermore accused of having provided guns used to kill the Tutsis in Butare, Gikongoro and the fact that he ordered gendarmes under his command to kill the Tutsis located in Butare and Gikongoro. 97

Page 289

The Military Court convicted him of complicity in murder committed against the Tutsis who took refuge at Cyahinda and who were killed by gendarmes deployed by him. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and to be stripped off his ranks while he was discharged of other offences. Habyarabatuma Cyriaque and the Prosecution lodged an appeal before the Military High Court, where his appeal was dismissed while the one lodged by the prosecution was given merit in part. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and his ranks were stripped off. Unpleased with the ruling, Habyarabatuma lodged an appeal in this court, stating that he was convicted of murder committed against refugees at Cyahinda while he was not there and that the court convicted him by analogy. He added that he could have done nothing to stop the killing because he was no longer in command in Butare. The Prosecutor states that the case file proves that on 19 April 1994 afternoon is the time Habyarabatuma Cyriaque got informed that he was transferred and he was not aware of the person who was to replace him because no handover was executed as Major Rusigariye Alfred who should have replaced him had not yet come. Therefore, the command was not transferred to 2nd Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga as Habyarabatuma Cyriaque alleges because he is not the one he had to hand over to. Held: 1. There is command responsibility when a commander knew or could have known that his/her subordinates are about to commit an offence and omitted to prevent it nor punish them in the aftermath, therefore, the fact that he gave to the gendarmes heavy guns while they were not going to war, without warning them about the safety of the refugees that he knew they were in danger as he had visited and saw the corpses of refugees killed

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98

Page 290

by the gendarmes and those injured by them, proves that he knew or could have known that they could be killed by the gendarmes and he did nothing to prevent it. Furthermore, the fact that he did not punish them, but he waited for them to be punished by the one who did not deploy them, without even request for the investigation over the killing to outbreak the punishment of the perpetrators, proves that he failed on his duties as a Commander.

2. The command responsibility for a commander does not rely on crimes committed by his/her subordinates, rather on the failure to carry out his/her duty as a superior and to exercise control properly.

3. The power or authority to prevent or to punish does not solely arise from de jure authority conferred through official appointment, as there may be only de facto, self-proclaimed governments and therefore de facto armies and paramilitary groups subordinate thereto Command structure, organised hastily, may well be in disorder and primitive. To enforce the law in these circumstances requires determination of accountability not only of individual offenders but of their commanders or other superiors who were, based on evidence, in control of them without, a formal commission or appointment. Appeal without merit. Judgment rendered by the Military High Court sustained. Court fees charged to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law Nº16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts, article 51. PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 99

Page 291

Cases referred to: Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva, ICTR (Appeal Judgment), Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, 14 December 2011, para.

697. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para.

171. Prosecutor v. Mucic et al, ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195. Authors cited: An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p.399. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE

The case started in the Military Court, whereby ACP [1] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was accused by the Military Prosecution for having been part of planners, organizers and perpetrators of genocide committed against the Tutsis, where he arrested secret agents of Inkontanyi in 1990, trained and provided guns to Burundian refugees at Nyaruteja and Interahamwe at Stade Kamena. He was also prosecuted for complicity in murder committed in different places namely Tumba, National University of Rwanda (NUR), Matyazo, Rukira, Ngoma, Sahera, Kabutare, Nkomero, Kigembe and Kabakobwa, when he omitted to rescue people in danger and they consequently succumbed to death. He was furthermore accused of having provided guns used to kill the Tutsis in

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 100

Page 292

Butare, Gikongoro and the fact that he ordered gendarmes under his command to kill the Tutsis located in Butare and Gikongoro.

The Military court convicted him of complicity in [2] murder committed against the Tutsis who took refuge at Cyahinda and were killed by gendarmes deployed by him, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to be stripped of his ranks while he was discharged of other offences.

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque and the Prosecution lodged an [3] appeal before the Military High Court, where his appeal was dismissed while the one lodged by the prosecution was given merit in part. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with special provisions and his ranks were stripped off.

Deciding so, the Military High Court based on the fact [4] that the Military court misused the legal provision used to condemn the offence, using article 78 of the Organic Law Nº16/2004 of 19/6/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, as amended to date, the provision used being the one for those aged of (14) years or more but less than eighteen (18) years. The court decided that the fact that the accused was beyond 18 years when he committed the offences charged against him, as he was born 1955, article to be used was 72(1) of the Organic-Law Nº16/2004 of 19/6/2004 mentioned above as amended and completed by article 17 of the Organic Law Nº13/2008 of 19/5/2008.

The court found that with regard to mitigating [5] circumstances considered by the Military Court leading to the PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 101

Page 293

penalty reduction for the accused of genocide, are provided for in paragraph 2 and 3 of article 72 of the Organic Law Nº 16/2004 of 19/6/2004 above mentioned for those who plead guilty and seek forgiveness and that in case there are more mitigating circumstances, article 81 is the one to refer to in delivering the lower penalty for such an offence. Therefore, the Military Court was mistaken and used article 82 of the Decree - Law Nº21/77 of 18/08/1977 instituting the penal code while it is for other offences.

Unpleased with the ruling of the case [6] RPA0001/GEN/010/HCM rendered by the Military High Court on 29 September 2011, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque lodged an appeal in this court, stating that he was convicted of murder committed against refugees at Cyahinda while he was not there and that the court convicted him by analogy. He added that he could nothing to stop the killing because he was no longer of command of Butare.

The case was heard in public on 2 November 2015 [7] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque being assisted by Counsel Bimenyimana Emmanuel while the Prosecution was represented by Lt. Nzakamwita Faustin, the Military Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II.1. Whether Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was in command of Gendarmerie of Butare at the time refugees at Cyahinda were murdered.

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque argues that on 18 April 1994 [8] around 3h00PM, he deployed 2nd-Lieutenant Majoro to Cyahinda and he stayed in Butare. The same evening, he

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 102

Page 294

received a message that he was transferred to Kigali and he left early morning of the next day because the military decisions are immediately executed, and he was replaced by 2nd-Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga who was also replaced by Major Rusigariye Alfred two days later. He states that although he agrees that he was still chief of Gendarmerie of Butare when 2nd -Lieutenant Majoro was deployed to Cyahinda, he was not notified of the killings of the refugees at Cyahinda because they did not plot it together, he was no longer at the place, and if he were there he could not stop it, considering that he no longer had authority over him due to relocation, and he could not disobey the order to transfer him as it would be an offence. He adds that he got aware of the killings committed against the refugees on 26 April 1994 when he was in leave of few hours and went back to Butare for the handover with Major Rusigariye Alfred, all proving that 2nd -Lieutenant Majoro is the one to be held liable for his own actions, and he must be proven not guilty as they were not accomplices.

Counsel Bimenyimana Emmanuel argues that the [9] refugees were executed when Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was transferred to Kigali by the Headquarter, proving that his transfer and the one of the Prefect of Butare occurred on 19 April 1994 permitted the killing of Tutsis to start. Therefore, the Military High Court convicted him with analogy because when the killings were committed, he was no longer in command of the Gendarmerie of Butare.

The Prosecutor states that the case file proves that on 19 [10] April 1994 afternoon is the time Habyarabatuma Cyriaque got informed that he was transferred and he was not aware of the one who will replace him because no handover was executed PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 103

Page 295

because Major Rusigariye Alfred who should have replaced him had not yet come. Therefore, the command was not transferred to 2nd Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga as Habyarabatuma Cyriaque pretends because he is not the one he had to hand over to.

He keeps stating that the fact that Habyarabatuma [11] Cyriaque deployed 2nd Lieutenant Majoro to Cyahinda while he stayed in Butare, it does not mean that he could not give order because they could not shot without him knowing, implying that if he was not in their plot, he would have called them back the same day. However, when gendarmeries brought corpses of their fellows, they found him in the Gendarmerie as asserted by Corporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet and he did not inform Major Rusigariye Alfred that the gendarmes he had deployed to Cyahinda did the evil, that he has not yet proved that he was at Kigali, even though it was proved that he was at Kigali, he would not be out of criminal responsibility because he was still commander as long as he was not yet replaced, thus, he must be held liable.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque argues that he received the [12] transfer in the evening of 18 April 1994 while the case file proves that he stated in the Military Prosecution that he got a telegram requesting him to report to Kacyiru on 19 April 1994 at 2:00 PM, and he was not immediately replaced (“Le 19/04/1994, j’ai reçu un telegramme de l’EM/GDN (Etat Major/ Gendarmerie Nationale) qui m’appelait à Kacyiru au plus tard à 14 h00 comme Commandant d’Unité sans me faire remplacer” pages 2, 19 and 24). When he was asked whether there were road blocks in Butare center after the death of Juvénal

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104

Page 296

Habyarimana, he replied as follow “yes, after my departure for Kigali on 19 April 1994” (Après mon départ pour Kigali le 19/04/1994) (see page 21).

The court finds that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque is the one [13] who deployed gendarmes to Cyahinda, and he was still in Butare when refugees at Cyahinda were killed because he acknowledges that he left on 19 April 1994 the next day of the day refugees were killed by the gendarmes he had deployed. The fact that he received a telegram transferring him to Kigali on 18 April 1994, cannot remove command responsibility from acts committed by the gendarmes he deployed, as he recognizes that he did not immediately leave nor was replaced, implying that as long as he was still there, he was chief, even though this was the case, nothing could have prevented him to stop the killing or request the one who had replaced him to take measures preventing or stopping the killing. The fact that he omitted to do so, he failed on his duties as a reasonable commander and he must be held liable. II.2. Whether Habyarabatuma Cyriaque knew or could have known that the gendarmes he deployed to Cyahinda will kill Tutsis who took refuge there.

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque acknowledges that on 18 April [14] 1994, he deployed the gendarmes to Cyahinda, but for another purpose than killing refugees, that even him was considered as a spy, the reason why the Prefect of Butare and himself were transferred and his brother was killed, that since the beginning of the killing, he did not plot to kill Tutsis, something approved by the letter written to him by the Prefect of Butare, thanking him for the good collaboration between two entities and the research conducted by André Guchaoua who affirmed in his PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 105

Page 297

book entitled Rwanda 1994: Les politiques du génocide à Butare at pages 250 up to 303, that there was no killing in Butare under commandment of Habyarabatuma Cyriaque. Habyarabatuma states that starting from 18 April 1994, after being transferred to Kigali, the commandment was given to 2nd Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga who was also replaced by Major Rusigariye, that even when Tutsis refugees were killed at Cyahinda, he was still there but he was not commander and he did not send the gendarmes to kill, requesting the court to rectify mistakes committed by the Military High Court that convicted him for the offence he did not commit, so that he may be declared not guilty.

Counsel Bimenyimana Emmanuel states that [15] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was convicted for murder committed against refugees at Cyahinda while he was innocent, that the statements that he would have given guns to the gendarmes to kill people at Cyahinda are wrong because Cpl Dufitumukiza Anaclet stated that Major Habyarabatuma gave no orders of killings to gendarmes deployed to Cyahinda, that if he had plotted to, he would have killed a Tutsi at least, because as the Prosecution argues, the killing started on 7 April 1994, while until 18 April 1994, no Tutsi was killed in Butare and the Prosecution does not prove that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque ordered to kill refugees or that the gendarmes he deployed to Cyahinda were known as barbarous, to the extent that the one who deployed them should have known that they might kill people. He states furthermore that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was not able to punish the gendarmes who killed people, because he was no longer their commander as he was transferred, implying that the Military High Court disregarded the principle that the criminal liability is personal, avoiding that

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 106

Page 298

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque be punished for the offence committed by 2nd-Lieutenant Majoro.

He argues furthermore that the case for Habyarabatuma [16] Cyriaque should be considered as the one opposing the Military Prosecution and Brigadier General Wilson Gumisiriza who was accused for the killing committed against the religious people by soldiers under his command, whereby the court held that Brigadier General Wilson Gumisiriza did not know and could not know that those soldiers were about to commit killings, implying that such decision should be the one to take with Habyarabatuma Cyriaque because he did not know and could not know that the gendarmes he deployed to Cyahinda to protect refugees will kill them instead. He requested to the court to rectify such mistake and declare his client not guilty.

The prosecutor states that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque and [17] his lawyer do not state the truth, that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, as commander “Commandant de Groupement”, on 17 April 1994, when he was with the Prefect of Butare, guaranteed security to the refugees and the next day, he sent the gendarmes with the mission to collect guns from the refugee camp and bring the corpses of the gendarmes killed by the refugees as affirmed by Cpl Dufitumukiza Anaclet, the gendarmes left being very angry and once arrived in the refugees camp, they killed the refugees. He kept on stating that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque is not accused of giving order to kill the refugees but of not giving orders to not kill the Tutsis refugees of having omitted to take an action preventing the gendarmes to kill Tutsis who took refuge at Cyahinda. Therefore, he added, he must be held liable for the acts committed by those he deployed as provided for by article 53(2) of the Organic Law Nº16/2004 of PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 107

Page 299

19/6/2004 establishing the organisation, competence and functioning of Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying the perpetrators of the crime of genocide and other crimes against humanity, committed between October 1st, 1990 and December 31, 1994.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT

Article 51 of the Organic Law Nº16/2004 of 19/6/2004 [18] above mentioned provides: “Following acts of participation in offences referred to in article 1 of this Organic Law, committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, the accused can be classified in one of the following categories: The person who, at that time, was in the organs of leadership, at the national level, at the level of Prefecture, Sub-prefecture, Commune, in political parties, army, gendarmerie, communal police, religious denominations or in militia, has committed these offences or encouraged other people to commit them, together with his or her accomplices; 3° The well-known murderer who distinguished himself or herself in the location where he or she lived or wherever he or she passed, because of the zeal which characterized him or her in killing or excessive wickedness with which they were carried out, together with his or her accomplices. As for 51 of the same Organic Law provides that the fact that any of the acts aimed at by this Organic Law has been committed by a subordinate, does not free his or her superior from his or her criminal responsibility if he or she knew or could have known that his or her subordinate was getting ready to commit this act or had done it, and that the superior has not taken necessary and reasonable measures to punish the authors or prevent that the mentioned act be not committed when he or she had means”.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 108

Page 300

The case file proves that Munyeshuli Protogène stated [19] before the Military Prosecution that the refugees at Cyahinda started with resistance against the gendarmes and killed some of them with arrows and took two guns off them, then on 17 April 1994, the Prefect Habyarimana came with Major Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, and the latter promised them that he was about changing the wicked gendarmes with the right ones able to ensure their safety, but the next day on 18 April 1994, instead of mutating the gendarmes who were at the place, he deployed others with heavy guns (pages 154-156). As for Rusatsi Jean, he stated that the gendarmes came from Butare and with the help of those who were at the place, they encircled and shot them with big and small guns and those who survived them were killed by malicious interahamwe (page 151).

With regard to Nteziryayo Jean Baptiste, he declared [20] before the Military Prosecution that the Prefect of Butare and the chief of gendarmes arrived at Cyahinda and the refugees showed them the corpses and the wounded of refugees caused by the massacres of two days between the refugees, the gendarmes and interahamwe militia. He goes on to speak that they promised them to change the guards but in the next night, the fight had become very serious and they managed to kill two gendarmes and take their guns. The next day, he added, on 18 April 1994, more gendarmes were deployed and encircled the refugees camp around 9h00AM and shot from different corners with the guns that were never used before and those who managed to survive were killed by interahamwe militia including Burundians (pages 128-130).

The case file proves that Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet [21] also stated before the Military Prosecution that the gendarmes PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 109

Page 301

gathered the refugees at Cyahinda with the aim to take tradition weapons off them, and the refugees killed two gendarmes with machete and take guns off them, and the next day (18 April 1994) is when Major Habyarabatuma Cyriaque gave to the “Section” in which the killed gendarmes were grouped with supervision of 2nd Lieutenant Majoro and gave them strong weapons [machine guns and others] “with mission to take guns off the refugees and bring the corpses of gendarmes”, that those gendarmes stayed for three days and many people were killed (mark 192).

The court finds that the aforementioned prove that Major [22] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque decided to deploy the gendarmes to Cyahinda after that those who were there had fought against Tutsis refugees and the latter killed two of them and took guns off them. Therefore, the option of deploying the gendarmes of the same section than those killed there with heavy guns such as machine guns, with the mission to bring back the corpses and their guns in the possession of Tutsi refugees, being aware that in that special period, Tutsis were being hunted and killed for nothing, it contradicts what he stated that the gendarmes were for the security of the refugees (mark 27). Therefore, as he states that he did not give the mission to the gendarmes to kill the refugees, the fact that he gave them the heavy guns while they were not going to war, without warning them about the safety of the refugees that he knew they were in danger as he had visited and saw the corpses of the refugees killed by the gendarmes and those injured by them, prove that he knew or he could have known that the refugees could be killed by the gendarmes and he did nothing to prevent it.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 110

Page 302

The Court finds furthermore that the statements made by [23] Habyarabatuma Cyriaque and counsel Bimenyimana Emmanuel on the principle that the criminal liability is personal was disregarded by the Military High Court lack merit because Habyarabatuma Cyriaque is accused as commander, of international crime of genocide, with regard to that crime, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) held that the principle that military and other superiors may be held criminally responsible for the acts of their subordinates is well-established in conventional and customary international law and that in such case, an accused is not charged with the crime of his subordinates but with his failure to carry out his duty as a superior to exercise control1. Furthermore, the same was the opinion of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in the case opposing the Prosecution against Bagosora Théoneste and Anatole Nsengiyumva, where the court held that Bagosora Théoneste is liable for failing in his duty to prevent the killing of civilians committed by the soldiers under his command.2

1 “The principle that military and other superiors may be held criminally responsible for the acts of their subordinates is well-established in conventional and customary international law.” Prosecutor v. Mucic et al, ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 195. “where superior responsibility is concerned, an accused is not charged with the crime of his subordinates but with his failure to carry out his duty as a superior to exercise control.”Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, ICTY, Appeal Chamber, 13/02/2003, para. 171. 2 “The Appeals Chambers affirms the Trial Chamber’s findings that he [Bagosora Théoneste] is liable under Article 6(3) of the Statute for failing in his duty to prevent the killing of Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, Joseph Kavaruganda, Frédéric Nzamurambaho, Landouard Ndasingwa, and Faustin Rucogoza, as well as the crimes committed at Centre Christus, Kabeza, Kibagabaga Mosque, the Saint Josephite Centre, Karama Hill, PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 111

Page 303

The Court finds that the Law Scholars in International [24] Criminal Law also affirm that the concept of superior responsibility is an original creation of international criminal law for which there are no paradigms in national legal systems and that it is today anchored firmly in customary international law and that the command responsibility moves from deliberate failure to intervene despite a duty to do so, which fall close to traditional complicity ideas, to essence, conduct which is close to, if not the same as negligent dereliction of duties,3 all proving that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque must be held liable for the genocide committed by the gendarmes he sent to Cyahinda on 18 April 1994.

The Court finds furthermore that the case law of [25] Brigadier General Wilson Gumisiriza referred to by Habyarabatuma Cyriaque and his counsel, requesting that the case of Habyarabatuma Cyriaque be held in such way because he did not know and he could not know that the gendarmes he deployed to Cyahinda would kill the refugees, is not the same as this case, because as highlighted above, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque knew that Tutsis are being hunted and killed, that

Kibagabaga Catholic Church, and Gikondo Parish.” See Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora and Anatole Nsengiyumva, ICTR (Appeal Judgment), Case NoICTR-98-41-A, 14 December 2011, para. 697. 3 The concept of superior responsibility is an original creation of international criminal law for which there are no paradigms in national legal systems… *It is today anchored firmly in customary international law.” See Gerhard Werle, Principles of International Criminal Law, The Hague: Asser Press, 2005, pp. 128-137 and “Command responsibility moves from deliberate failure to intervene despite a duty to do so, which fall close to traditional complicity ideas, to in essence, conduct which is close to, if not the same as negligent dereliction of duties.” Robert Cryer, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p.399.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 112

Page 304

specifically, the refugees at Cyahinda were being killed and he is the one who deployed the gendarmes who killed the Tutsi refugees, knowing or able to know that they could be killed, something different from what was held in the case of Brigadier General Wilson Gumisiriza, that he did not know and could not know that the military officers under his command would commit murder. II.3. Determine whether in the aftermath of the killing of the refugees at Cyahinda, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque failed to his duty of punishing the perpetrators gendarmes.

Habyarabatuma Cyriaque and his counsel Bimenyimana [26] Emmanuel state that on 19 April 1994 when Habyarabatuma and Prefect of Butare were transferred, it is when the killing started, because the fact of transferring them enabled those who plotted the genocide to execute it and since that time until 26 April 1994, when he came for the handover with Major Rusigariye Alfred, he had not yet known that the refugees were killed and at that time he no longer had authority over the “unit” in Butare so that he would had punished those who killed the refugees at Cyahinda because he was removed from being commander of that unite since 19 April 1994, all proving that the Military High Court rendered the verdict by analogy, therefore, he requests this Court to rectify the mistake and declare the accused not guilty.

The prosecutor states that the Military High Court held [27] that if Habyarabatuma Cyriaque had punished the gendarmes, he would have proved that he was not in their plot and even on 18 April 1994, he was able to recall them from Cyahinda, implying that as long as he was still in the Military camp, Second-Lieutenant Ngaboyisonga was not able to be on PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 113

Page 305

command, that his statements that he was immediately replaced or that he did not have time to punish are wrong, because in no way a second-lieutenant can take over while a Major is still around, especially that Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet expressed that when the gendarmes came back with the corpses, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was still around. Therefore, he requests the court to hold that there was no analogy in the judgment appealed against and sustain it.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT

The documents in the case file prove that during his [28] interrogation in the Military Prosecution, Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet stated that even after the handover with Major Rusigariye, he noticed that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was still powerful in Butare unit (see mark 191). As for Habyarabatuma Cyriaque, he recognises that he was the commander of Butare gendarmerie till he was transferred to Kigali on 19 April 1994 between ten and eleven o’clock, and that until 26 April 1994 when he handed over to Major Rusigariye Alfred, he was not yet replaced (pages 19-20, 24, 686). It is also noted that when he was before the Military High Court, he was asked if the gendarmes who killed people at Cyahinda were punished and he replied that there was an overflow and the gendarmes killed people and vice versa but that Major Rusigariye Alfred who replaced him punished the second -Lieutenant Majoro who was commanding the gendarmes who killed the refugees, that he did not personally do it because he had a lot to do (pages 684-687).

The Court finds that the killing was committed at [29] Cyahinda on 18 April 1994 by the gendarmes deployed by Habyarabatuma Cyriaque who recognizes that he was not yet

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 114

Page 306

replaced on 26 April 1994, implying that until then, he was still considered as the commander of the gendarmerie of Butare even though he was transferred to the headquarter. This is supported by Caporal Dufitumukiza Anaclet who states that even after the handover; he noticed that Habyarabatuma Cyriaque was still commander, all proving that his order would have been respected. Therefore, as he did not prevent the killing, nor did he punish the gendarmes he deployed to Cyahinda and who committed the killing, but he waited for them to be punished by the one who did not deploy them, without even request for the investigation over the killing to outbreak the punishment of the perpetrators, it proves that he failed on his duties as a Commander.

The Court finds that the same opinion was held by the [30] International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, whereby it decided that “the power or authority to prevent or to punish does not solely arise from de jure authority conferred through official appointment. In many contemporary conflicts, there may be only de facto, self -proclaimed governments and therefore de facto armies and paramilitary groups subordinate thereto. Command structure, organized hastily, may well be in disorder and primitive. To enforce the law in these circumstances requires a determination of accountability not only of individual offenders but of their commanders or other superiors who were, based on evidence, in control of them without, however, a formal commission or appointment.”4

4 The power or authority to prevent or to punish does not solely arise from de jure authority conferred through official appointment. In many contemporary conflicts, there may be only de facto, self-proclaimed governments and therefore de facto armies and paramilitary groups subordinate thereto. Command structure, organized hastily, may well be in disorder and PROSECUTION v. HABYARABATUMA 115

Page 307

Considering all the above mentioned, the court finds that [31] as held by the Military High Court, Habyarabatuma Cyriaque is guilty of the complicity in genocide committed against the Tutsis refugees at Cyahinda, therefore, his appeal is dismissed. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT

Dismiss the appeal lodged by Assistant Commissioner of [32] Police Habyarabatuma Cyriaque.

Sustains the judgment RPA/GEN0001/010/HCM [33] rendered by the Military High Court on 29 September 2011.

Orders the court fees to be charged to the public treasury [34] as Habyarabatuma Cyriaque is in jail.

primitive. To enforce the law in these circumstances requires a determination of accountability not only of individual offenders but of their commanders or other superiors who were, based on evidence, in control of them without, however, a formal commission or appointment.” Prosecutor v. Mucic et al, ICTY (Appeal Chamber), judgment of 20 February 2001, paragraph 193.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 116

Page 308

PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/REV/INJUST/PEN.0001/16/CS (Mugenzi, P.J., Mutashya and Gatete, J.) June 10, 2016] Criminal Law – Cohabitation – Living as cohabitants permanently – It is qualified as cohabitation, considering the period they spend together, with effect of being considered by neighbours and others as spouses, without taking into account the length of that period, but their cohabitation must be accompanied by the facts leading to believe beyond doubt that those persons live together as wife and husband – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 247. Criminal procedure – Discretion of the prosecutor to prosecute – The fact that one of the cohabitants was not prosecuted, does not release the prosecuted co-offender from his criminal liability – Law Nº13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 43. Damages – Damages resulting from criminal liability between spouses – It is not forbidden to order one of the spouses to pay his/her partner moral damages resulting from criminal liability, even if they live under the community of property regime. Facts: The accused was brought before the Primary Court of Nyarugunga charged with the offence of cohabitation, the court acquitted him basing on the fact that the Judge found no proof of cohabiting with his claimed cohabitant as husband and wife permanently, because he resides in Belgium, in addition to that, 117

Page 309

the witnesses heard did not reveal that they live together permanently. The claimant for damages appealed to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, submitting that the court disregarded witness declarations proving that the accused had a cohabitant, she also appealed for damages that the Primary Court denied granting her. The court decided that, the appeal lodged by the claimant for damages has merit, that the accused is criminally liable for cohabitation and sentenced him to 6 months of imprisonment and fine of one hundred thousand Rwandan francs (100,000Frw). The court further ordered him to pay moral damages to the claimant. The accused applied for review due to injustice to the Supreme Court under the procedure stating that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge disregarded the evidence by relying on false statements of witnesses as well as the provisions of the law punishing cohabitation where the court found him criminally responsible to have permanently stayed at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance’s home, which is not possible because he cannot reside at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance’s home and in Belgium where he resided at once. The prosecutor requested the court to interpret the words “live together permanently”, because the law does not explain it, in order to find out whether it means living together on daily basis up to death, living together permanently, coming repeatedly, or come and stay for one week, one, two, three months, or a year is enough to be qualified as such. Held: 1. For the offence of cohabitation, the word “live together permanently” does not mean living together to death or living as legally married, it is rather being considered as husband and

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 118

Page 310

wife by people and neighbours basing on their behaviours during the period they spend together regardless of its length. In addition, their cohabitation have to demonstrate tangible facts that leave no doubt to confirm that such persons live as husband and wife such as living, sleep, welcoming guests, shopping, accompanying kids to school, etc... together.

2. The prosecution has privilege of prosecuting or not, for that reason, the fact that one of cohabitants was not prosecuted does not release the prosecuted co-offender from his criminal liability.

3. It is not forbidden to order one of the spouses to pay his/her partner, moral damages resulting from criminal liability, even if they live under the community of property regime, therefore, there is no injustice in ordering the accused to pay moral damages. Application for review of judgment due to injustice has no merit. Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, articles 247 and 249. Law N°59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence, articles 2(4°) and 21(2°). Law N°13/2004 of 17/5/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, article 43. Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 65.

PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 119

Page 311

Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE

CASE [1] This case begun in the Primary Court of Nyarugunga where Muzatsinda was accused of cohabitation upon complaint of her wife Umutesi Afisa claiming that he is cohabiting with another woman known by names of Nyirantakirutimana Espérance. The court found him not guilty because the judge found no proof of cohabitation as husband and wife permanently, as Muzatsinda was domiciled in Belgium and witnesses heard did not demonstrate that they live together permanently. [2] Umutesi Afisa, the aggrieved party, appealed to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge submitting that the court disregarded witness declarations proving that the accused had a mistress. She also appealed for damages that the Primary Court denied granting her. [3] The case was tried in default of Muzatsinda who was duly summoned and the Court pronounced the verdict on 09 May 2013 whereby it decided that Umutesi Afisa’s appeal has merit, and overturned the judgment rendered by the Primary Court of Nyarugunga on 31 July 2012. It found Muzatsinda Emmanuel guilty for the offence of cohabitation, sentenced him to six months of imprisonment and payment of fine equivalent to one hundred thousand Rwandan francs and ordered him to pay moral damages of 500,000Frw to Umutesi Afisa.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 120

Page 312

[4] The evidence by which the court has based on to find him guilty include, the testimony declared by several persons, among them, Nshimiyimana Jean Damascène, a village leader who has witnessed that he used to see him at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance home as her husband, ignoring that he was married to another spouse, Harerimana also known as Kazungu who also confirmed that Muzatsinda Emmanuel and Nyirantakirutimana Espérance lived together as husband and wife, Byukusenge Claudine who testified that she used to be given a lift by Muzatsinda Emmanuel together with Nyirantakirutimana Espérance and Kamana Sylvestre who is in charge of night patrol, proved that summons were served at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance because she was considered as a a spouse to Muzatsinda Emmanuel. [5] With regard to moral damages requested by Umutesi Afisa, the court found them to be excessive and in its discretion, she was awarded five hundred thousand (500,000Frw), whereas for requested damages of 14,400,00Frw for Muzatsinda’s family abandonment, the Court denied granting her these damages as she did not prove their basis. [6] Muzatsinda Emmanuel applied for review of the judgment due to injustice before the Supreme Court, stating that the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge disregarded the evidence, by considering the false statements of the witnesses as well as the provisions of the law reprimanding cohabitation. [7] For the office of Ombudsman, the fact that Muzatsinda Emmanuel was prosecuted alone on the offence of cohabitation whereas according to article 249 of the penal code, it is compulsory that the prosecution be instituted against both accused spouse and the co-offender, there had been injustice PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 121

Page 313

due to the violation of the provision, especially that one of the grounds of Umutesi Afisa’s appeal, Nyirantakirutimana Espérance was not prosecuted. [8] In addition, the office of the Ombudsman was of the view that moral damages of 500,000Frw that Muzatsinda Emmanuel was ordered to pay her wife Umutesi Afisa was baseless and the judgment disregarded that they were married under community of property regime, for that reason, it petitioned for the review of the judgment RPA0250/12/TGI/NYGE due to injustice basing on articles 79 and 81 of Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [9] After receiving the ombudsman’s letter for the review of that judgment due to injustice, after examining the report from Inspectorate General of Courts on this case, with reference to article 80 of the Organic Law N°03/2012/OL of 13/06/2012 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice approved the judgment RPA0250/12/TGI/NYGE to be recorded in the court registers for review. [10] The hearing was held on 25 April 2016, Muzatsinda Emmanuel assisted by counsel Barahira Eric and counsel Ruberwa Pierre, Umutesi Afisa (the claimant for damages) assisted by counsel Ayifayi Augustin while the prosecution was represented by Mukunzi Faustin, the National Prosecutor. [11] In addition to the ombudsman’s grounds for the judgment review, Muzatsinda Emmanuel raised that he was found guilty of cohabitation whereas he was not living at

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 122

Page 314

Nyirantakirutimana Espérance permanently as provided for by article 249 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES [12] Among legal issues for determination in the present judgment, include the interpretation of the words “ live together permanently” provided for by article 247 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, to examine whether there is tangible evidence proving that Muzatsinda Emmanuel and Nyirantakirutimana Espérance lived together permanently to the extent that it can be qualified as cohabitation, to examine whether failure to prosecute Nyirantakirutimana Espérance consists of injustice and to know whether one of the spouses married under community of property regime can be ordered to pay damages resulting from the offence to his partner. A. Whether there is tangible evidence proving that Muzatsinda Emmanuel and Nyirantakirutimana Espérance live together permanently to the extent that it can be qualified as cohabitation. A.1. To examine the issue of the interpretation of the words “live together permanently” provided for by article 247 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code. [13] Muzatsinda Emmanuel states that he was found guilty of cohabitation basing on the fact of staying at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance permanently whereas he was not staying/living there permanently. He explains he used to pass by to visit her as his PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 123

Page 315

family friend and he adds that it was impossible to reside there because he cannot reside at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance’s and in Belgium at the same time. [14] The aggrieved party, Umutesi Afisa argues that the cohabitation occurred since Muzatsinda Emmanuel used to come to Rwanda for 3 months and throughout this period, he was staying at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance and this is known by her neighbours. [15] Counsel Ayifayi Augustin maintains that for the offence of cohabitation to be committed, there is no required period, as this may be short or long, a month or a year, therefore what is important is the perception of their behaviours by the public. [16] The prosecutor requests the Court to interpret the words “live together permanently”, because the law does not explain it in order to find out whether it means living together to death, live together permanently, coming repeatedly, or come and stay one week, one, two, three months, or a year.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT [17] Article 247 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code states that Cohabitation is a de facto union between a man and a woman who live together permanently; either one or both are legally married. [18] The Court finds that the aforesaid article 247 did not provide the length of the period of staying together for a man and a woman to be qualified as cohabitation.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 124

Page 316

[19] The Court finds that the interpretation of the words “live together permanently” would not be living together to death, living permanently as legally married husband and wife, rather being considered as husband and wife by people and neighbors basing on their behaviors during the period they spend together regardless its of length. In addition, their cohabitation needs to demonstrate tangible facts that leave no doubt to confirm that such persons live as husband and wife such as living, sleeping, receiving guests, shopping, accompanying kids to school, etc….together. A.2. Whether there was enough evidence to find Muzatsinda Emmanuel guilty of cohabitation. [20] Muzatsinda Emmanuel contends that the judge based on inconsistent statements of witnesses, whereby he stated that witnesses testified against him for living with Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, which is wrong because he resides in Belgium, and that when he comes in Rwanda, he stays at his home in Rugunga. [21] Counsels for Muzatsinda Emmanuel explains that he possesses Belgium residence permit which evidences that he resides in Belgium instead of Rwanda. They add that village and cell authorities have issued a document informing that Muzatsinda is not registered there, for that reason, the statements of witnesses cannot prevail over official documents. [22] With regard to summons of Muzatsinda Emmanuel served at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, they explain that they were not received by Muzatsinda because he was in Belgium, therefore the Court should not have considered statements of PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 125

Page 317

witnesses whereas they possess documents indicating Belgium as a place of residence for Muzatsinda Emmanuel. [23] Counsel Ayifari Augustin contends that Muzatsinda Emmanuel cannot demonstrate documents of the hotel where he used to stay while in Rwanda, he rather used to stay at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance who is not her sister, and he says that despite the documents issued by village leaders stating that he doesn’t reside in Rwanda, it does not mean that he had no stay in Rwanda. [24] The Prosecutor states that contrary to Muzatsinda’s position, there is no contradiction in statements of witnesses, because the declarations of Byukusenge Claudine found on identification mark 29 state that she used to see Muzatsinda Emmanuel and Nyirantakirutimana Espérance getting in and out of the same home and used to facilitate her transport when accompanying kids to school on their way to town in the morning. The Prosecutor adds that on identification mark 31, Nshimiyimana confirmed that Muzatsinda Emmanuel stays at that home and Kamana who is in charge of night patrol declares that when he was serving summons, they were received by Nyirantakirutimana Espérance as this can be found on identification mark 33. He adds that there is another witness Harerimana Jean on identification mark 35 who said that Nyirantakirutimana Espérance was cohabiting with a married man. [25] He adds that article 247 states that Cohabitation is a de facto union between a man and a woman who live together permanently while each one is legally married. Therefore he compares living permanently with a situation where a public servant who works in province with a residence in Kigali, which

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 126

Page 318

does not mean that a couple is not living together permanently. He further requests the court to examine that provision since the law has differentiated cohabitation from adultery, but that it is not possible to deny a fact of living together permanently for a stay of three months.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT [26] The article 2(4°) of the law N°59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence and article 247 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, both provisions provide cohabitation as union of non-married couple as a husband and a wife who live together permanently; either one or both being legally married. [27] The file contains the statements of the various witnesses including Nshimiyimana Jean Damascène, a leader for Muhabura village, who confirmed that he didn’t know that Muzatsinda Emmanuel has any other wife than Nyirantakirutimana Espérance. He also mentioned that even Muzatsinda Emmanuel’s summonses were served at her home, the place where Muzatsinda stayed. [28] There is also a statement found in file from a witness called Harerimana Jean who has declared that Muzatsinda Emmanuel and Nyirantakirutimana Espérance live as a wife and a husband, rather he was not aware of the existence of any other legally married wife for Muzatsinda Emmanuel. There are also other witnesses including Byukusenge Claudine who has witnessed that they used to drop her when accompanying the kid to school, as they went to work in the morning, the witness PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 127

Page 319

Kamana Sylvestre who is in charge of night patrol has also said that he knows Muzatsinda Emmanuel as a husband for Nyirantakirutimana Espérance and summons were served at her home and received by Nyirantakirutimana Espérance. [29] The court finds that even though Muzatsinda Emmanuel denies to have been cohabiting with Nyirantakirutimana Espérance permanently, alleging that he resides in Belgium and stays in his house located in Rugunga when he comes in Rwanda, this statement should not be considered due to the fact that he did not contradict the statements of the above said witnesses testifying that every time he came in Rwanda, his arrival used to be at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance home and they live as husband and wife and considered as such, to the extent summonses were served to the same address. [30] The Court finds the statements of witnesses interrogated not contradictory as Muzatsinda Emmanuel intends to convince, rather they arecomplementary as they all testify the fact that Muzatsinda Emmanuel stayed at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance all along his stay in Rwanda. They added that they did not know that he has another legally married wife, for that reason, their statements must be considered basing on article 65 of the Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production,1 because they testify what they personally saw. [31] With regard to the arguments of Muzatsinda Emmanuel, that he resides in Belgium instead of Rwanda, that there are

1 Only the court can assesses the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or rejection of testimonial evidence. It shall not be influenced by the number of witnesses. It shall mainly consider their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their testimonies.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 128

Page 320

supporting documents issued by village authorities, that it was impossible to live permanently at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance and in Belgium, the place of his residence, at the same time; the Court finds that this ground cannot be considered because the having no residence in Rwanda does not entail that he had not stayed in Rwanda. [32] The court finds that the fact of coming in Rwanda and stay for more than two months at Nyirantakirutimana Espérance can be qualified as he lives there permanently as he stays there and living together in the manner known by all, having his address there, and this happened repeatedly as he always used to find accommodation in the same home when he came to Rwanda, and in addition to that, he also admits that he could not miss to go there because Nyirantakirutimana Espérance’s husband was a friend to him. [33] The court finds that on the basis of above findings, no injustice exists in the judgment as far as this issue is concerned. B. Whether failure to prosecute Nyirantakirutimana Espérance would consist of injustice. [34] Muzatsinda Emmanuel states that he was prosecuted alone contrary to the provision of article 249 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code which provides that the prosecution is instituted against the accused spouse and the co-offender, for that reason, there is injustice in the fact that his co-offender was not prosecuted. [35] The counsel for Muzatsinda Emmanuel is of the view that injustice happened, alleging that the provisions of the law relating to prosecution of the offence of cohabitation were PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 129

Page 321

disregarded because Nyirantakirutimana Espérance, the co- offender for Muzatsinda Emmanuel was not prosecuted. [36] Counsel Ayifayi Augustin argues that the complaint was brought to the police against both, therefore the aggrieved party cannot be held responsible for prosecuting Muzatsinda Emmanuel alone, because she played her role. [37] The prosecutor contends that there is no injustice for prosecuting Muzatsinda alone, because the fact that Nyirantakirutimana Espérance was not prosecuted is not likely to exclude Muzatsinda from liability.

THE OPINION OF THE COURT [38] Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Law N°59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence states that penalties provided for paragraph one of this article shall apply to any person accepting to become a concubine. [39] Article 249 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code states that for the prosecution of adultery and cohabitation, it is instituted against the accused spouse and the co-offender. [40] The court finds that the documents in the file demonstrate that Nyirantakirutimana Espérance and Muzatsinda Emmanuel were both investigated by the judicial police on the same offence of cohabitation and they were issued the statements of detention as found in the investigation file. They were also prosecuted by the Primary level of as found in their

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 130

Page 322

interrogation statements on identification marks 66-69, therefore it is found that Nyirantakirutimana Espérance was prosecuted despite she was granted a provisional release. [41] The court finds that article 249 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above, on which Muzatsinda Emmanuel bases his arguments that the co- offenders for the cohabitation must be both prosecuted, should not be applicable to this judgment, because that law was not in force during the commission of the offence, rather the law into force was the Law N°59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence and it does not provide for compulsory prosecution of both co-offenders for the offence of cohabitation. [42] The Court finds only that this article means that when a cohabitant is prosecuted, he or she shall be sentenced to the same penalties as his or her co-offender. [43] The Court finds in addition that, though both cohabitants were to be prosecuted, it does not imply the failure to prosecute one of them renders the rest innocent. [44] In addition, basing on the Law N°59/2008 of 10/09/2008 on prevention and punishment of gender-based violence, the prosecution had privilege of prosecuting or not and sue an accused of their choice before the court as was provided for by article 43 of the Law Nº13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, which was into force during the commission of the offence, where that provision bestows the prosecution with the discretionary power over the files transferred by the judicial police, and this power includes closing the file it finds the prosecution inconvenient. PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 131

Page 323

[45] Basing on the grounds in the previous paragraphs, the court finds no injustice on this issue. C. To examine whether Muzatsinda Emmanuel should not have been ordered to pay Umutesi Afisa damages while they are married under the community of property regime. [46] With regard to the fact that Muzatsinda Emmanuel should not have been ordered to pay Umutesi Afisa damages while they are married under the community of property regime, the court finds this ground without merit because Umutesi Afisa claimed those damages basing on article 131 of the Law Nº13/2004 of 17/05/2004 relating to the code of criminal procedure, which was in force when she filed her claim for damages due to moral prejudice of being victim of the offence committed by her husband Muzatsinda Emmanuel, the issues if any, would happen in execution but this is not likely prevent the victim from being awarded damages. [47] The court finds that the fact that Umutesi Afisa and Muzatsinda Emmanuel are married under the community of property regime, does not impact the fact that Muzatsinda Emmanuel committed the offence against his wife and related damages as well and in addition, he did not advance any reason exempting one of the spouses to pay damages resulting from an offence to his or her partner. [48] The court finds therefore no injustice on this issue.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 132

Page 324

III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [49] Finds the petition initiated by Muzatsinda Emmanuel for review of the judgment RPA0250/12/TGI/NYGE due to injustice without merit.

PROSECUTION v. MUZATSINDA 133

Page 325

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889