RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY vs RUHANDO

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY vs RUHANDO

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2016-04-22 - Case/document no.: RCOMA 0122/12/CS - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY vs RUHANDO [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RCOMA 0122/12/CS (RUGEGE, P.J., MUKANDAMAGE and NGAGI, J.) 22nd April 2016] The law regulating taxes –The tax –The audit on direct income taxes –Assessment without notice –The assessment is made without notice if the tax payer has declared and it was not accompanied by all necessary documents, the list of creditors of the tax payer in case his business annual turnover is twenty million (20,000,000 Frw) – The Law n°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 28, Commissioner General rules nº 001/2007 of 15/06/2007. The law regulating taxes –Intermediate business – A lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover - Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover instead of calculating its interests –if there has been an assessment without notice, the tax cannot go below the tax that should be given in case of taxation of intermediate income. Law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 2005 on direct taxes on income, article 11; The law regulating the taxes –The calculation of the value added tax (VAT) –The adjustment of taxes in done within three years –If the tax administration has not rectified the tax declaration within the period of three years it cannot deny receiving the tax that has been declared saying that it is expired, it is considered that that tax has been paid to the tax administration and

bears its effects. The damages –The damages for involvement within the court procedures are provided to the claimant if he/she has spent due to involvement within the court procedures, but within this case on appeal level, no damages may be provided to the claimant since the assessment without notice has been legally performed. Facts: This case originates from an audit that RRA has done to RUHONDO Ernest, where he has been provided with the note after audit that has been performed on direct income tax and on value added tax and he has been imposed to pay 162,068,634 Frw relating to 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. RUHONDO has not been satisfied with that audit and he appealed to the Commissioner General of RRA, and he replied to him that his appeal had basis with regard to the loss originating from the year of 2007, and he said that ony 11,240,413 Frw is waived to him on the tax that has been imposed to him and there remained 150,828,221 Frw. After that RUHONDO Ernest was not satisfied with that decision and seized the Commercial High Court which also decided that the claim had basis, and decided that the direct income tax amounting to 62,583,302 Frw for 2008 and that 66,628,196 Frw are waived. RRA was not satisfied with that decision and appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Commercial High Court has stated that the direct income tax for 2008 and 2010 has been

levied through the assessment without notice which is illegal, and it argued that the court has ignored that the law relating to tax provides for that the tax administration has right to carry out an assessment without notice if the tax declaration was not accompanied with all necessary documents. He said that the reason why RRA requests for the list of the creditor is to get the real image of business since the debts reduces the taxable income and that the taxpayer may declare to have debts which are not.

Page 2

RUHONDO argues saying that the law provides for that there are necessary documents which accompany the tax declaration, but it does provides for neither those documents nor the competent authority to elaborate them. He argued that the Commissioner General has himself given power since the law doesn’t provide for it. RRA argues saying that the court has stated that the tax that has been imposed to RUHANDO it based on the rate of 4% which is illegal, it ignored that RRA has proven that the taxation on the rate of 4% is legal, that the law provides for that the tax that is paid in case of assessment without notice cannot go below the tax that should be given in case of taxation of intermediate income, which also provides for that the lump sum tax of 4% of the business annual turnover. RUHANDO says that RRA bases on the tax of 4% on the article of the law which has not been respected since incase of assessment without notice the tax cannot go below 4%, which is imposed basing on the intermediate income, he says that he has not to pay tax since he has got loss. RRA argues saying that the Commercial High Court has ignored that in 2008 there was the tax of 16,508,703 Frw which has been denied by RRA, telling RUHANDO that the audit has expired therefore it could not accept the tax which it is not competent to carry an audit thereon, it says that the audit is carried out within three

years and that this period is opposable to RRA and the taxpayer. RUHANDO on his side says that with regard to VAT, that the taxpayer makes the declaration but in case RRA does not come to carry out an audit, what has been done by the taxpayer is considered as correct since it becomes final. Held: 1.The tax administration has right to carry out an assessment without notice if the tax declaration was not accompanied with all necessary documents and there has been included also the list of creditors of the tax payer in case his business annual turnover is more than or equal to twenty million (20,000,000 Frw). Thus, to charge the direct income tax for 2008 and 2010 by assessment without notice was legally done.

2. The Intermediate business owner who is the one who pays a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover, it mean that instead of calculating the real income, the tax the tax is calculated as a lump sum. If there has been an assessment without notice, the tax cannot go below the tax that should be charged in case of taxation of intermediate income.

3. The fact that RRA was competent to rectify the tax declaration, within the period of three years, it has to bear the consequences of not having done it, thus the tax administration has to accept the VAT that it has denied which has been paid by the taxpayer arguing that it has expired.

4. The Commercial High Court committed no fault by condemning RRA to pay damages as it is the one which has made the taxpayer to get involved in court proceedings and made him to spend paying the lawyer; however, at this level of appeal, the decision of condemnation to pay damages has to be dismissed since it has been realized that the assessment without notice has been legally performed.

Page 3

Appeal has basis on some grounds; The judgment No RCOMA 0095/12/HCC is changed with regard to direct income tax; And the damages that have been charged to RRA are waived; RUHANDO is condemned to restitute to RRA the half of the court fees. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: The Law n°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 11 & 28, Commissioner General rules nº 001/2007 of 15/06/2007, article 2. No case was referred to. Judgment I.BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 02/01/2012, RUHANDO Ernest has been given the audit report which has been carried out on direct income tax and on the added value tax, where he has been charged to pay the tax amounting to 162,068,634 Frw for the years of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. [2] RUHANDO Ernest was not satisfied with the outcome of that audit and on 08/02/2012 appealled to the Commissioner General of RRA, and on 30/03/2012 he responded to him that his appeal had basis with regard to to the article relating to the loss originating from 2007, and therefore on the tax amounting to 162,068,634 Frw that has been charged to him is deducted thereon the tax amounting to 11,240,413 Frw, and there remained 150,828,221 Frw related to the direct income tax for the years of 2008 (amounting to 62,583,302 Frw) and 2010 (amounting to 12,701,584 Frw) and 2009 (amounting to 8,915,139 Frw), while the interests for delay which would be

calculated on the date of payment. With regard to the value added tax of 2008, the Commisioner General said that the tax that is accepted to have been paid amounts to 56,623,239 Frw instead of being 73,131,312 Frw. [3] RUHANDO Ernest was not satisfied with that decision and appealed to the Commercial High Court. Within the judgment RCOM 0095/12/HCC decided on 15/06/2012, that court decided that his claim has basis and decided that the direct income tax of 2008 amounting to 62,583,302 Frw and that of 2010 amounting to 66,628,196 Frw are waved, and that the value added tax which has been paid on purchases (Input VAT) on 2008 amounted to 73,131,312 Frw instead of being 56,623,239 Frw. It has condemned RRA to pay to RUHANDO Ernest (RWATOLE) 500,000 Frw for the lawyer’s fees. [4] RRA was not satisfied with that decision and appealed against it before the Supreme Court : a) With regard to the direct income tax of 2008 and 2010 which has been provided through the assessment without notice:

Page 4

 The Commercial High Court stated that if RRA likes it, the list of creditors may be availed after the date of the declaration of the tax, but it does not prove the laws that should be based on, since after the declaration made by the taxpayer, as soon as the audit hasn’t rectified it, nowhere it can collapse with the taxpayer requesting him or her to avail any documents;  Even if the judge says that the list may be availed after the declaration, this is not what is provided for by the law since during the declaration of the direct income tax that list is the annex, basing on what is provided for by the article 28, 40, of Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as ammended and completed up todate, and what is provided for by the Law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income as ammended and completed up todate;  The Commercial Hight Court wanted to highlight that it is not allowed to make the assessment without the notice in case it does not prove that the rectification made caused the prejudice, but it does not the laws that provide it, that he ignored that the assessment without the notice is one among the ways of tax collection; b) With regard to the direct income tax that has been calculated on 4%, the Commercial High Court ignored: - The article 29, para.3, of the law No 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 which has been mentioned above which provides for that in case

of an estimated assessment, the amount of taxes cannot be less than the taxes which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime; - The article 11 of the Law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 mentioned above, provides for that Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover; c) With regard to value added tax of 2008; the Commercial High Court stated that RRA has to accept the whole tax that has been paid on the purchases during 2008 which amounted to 73,131,312 Frw, bu it ignored that the tax it accepts is the one for the months on which it made the audit from March to December 2008. d) With regard to the damages, it cannot be condemned to pay the lawyer’s fees of 500,000 Frw while it is obvious that RUHANDO Ernest’s claim has no basis (Accessorium sequitur principale). [5] The case has been publically heard on 22/03/2016, RRA was represented by Me MUGIRE Joseph while RUHANDO Ernest was represented by Me NSENGIYUMVA Abel.

Page 5

II.LEGAL ISSUE OF THE COURT a. Knowing whether providing the direct income tax for 2008 and 2010 through the assessment without notice has been legally done [6] Me MUGIRE Joseph said that the Commercial High Court has said that the assessment was illegal, but it ignored that that assessment bases on the article 28 para. 4 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides for that the Tax Administration is entitled to start the estimated assessment procedure when the tax declaration was not accompanied by all necessary documents, that RUHANDO Ernest has not availed the list of his creditors as provided for by the article 2 of the Commissioner General rules nº 001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income provides for that ground for which that RRA requests the list of the creditor is to get the real image of business since the debts reduces the taxable income and that the taxpayer may declare to have debts which are not. [7] Me NSENGIYUMVA Abel, who pleads on behalf of RUHANDO Ernest, says that article 28 para.4 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, provides for that there are necessary documents that accompany the tax declaration but it does not provides for which are those documents and the competent person to enumerate them, that what has been analysed is to know which are those necessary documents

and what it may serve within the tax assessment. [8] He says that to know which are those necessary documents are and what it may serve, the way the direct income tax is calculated, that article 16 of the Law n° 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income provides for that the business profit is the difference between the income and expenses, while the article 21 of that law provides for the requirements to be considered as deductible expenses. He continues saying that that list was not necessary since during the audit of 2006 and 2007 that list was not there and that the audit has been performed and was finished, that during 2008 RUHANDO Ernest has made a declaration and it has been accepted, he has not been told that there documents missing or that it was not complete. He said that in enacting the rules, the Commissioner General has been given himself the power since the law did not provide for them, if he was competent, that list was not necessary, thus if he has establishes things that were not necessary, the court may correct it, that the list itself does not reduce the profit rather it shows the names of the creditors, whereas the profit is determined in accounting.

VIEW OF THE COURT [9] The article 28 para.4 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as ammended and completed up todate, provides for: “the Tax Administration is entitled to start the estimated assessment procedure when […] 40 the tax declaration was not accompanied by all necessary documents” […]”. [10] The article 2 of the Commissioner General rules nº 001/2007 of 15/06/2007 implementing the law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income1, provides for that: “a person whose annual business turnover is twenty million (20,000,000 RWF) or more must attach 1 These rules has been published in the Official Gazette No 12 of 15/06/2007.

Page 6

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”. [11] Within this case, the file proves that RUHANDO Ernest has been assessed without the notice on the taxable year of 2008 and 2010 due to the fact that, within the declaration of that tax, he did not annexed thereon the list of his creditors, while RRA argues that list is a necessary document which has to accompany the tax declaration, whereas RUHANDO Ernest argues that list is not a necessary document since the credits he owes to others are available within “the balancesheet” which accompanied the tax declaration, to the extend that that list may be presented after in case RRA needs it, this RUHANDO Ernest’s argument is the one which has been considered by the Commercial High Court. [12] The court realises that as it is provided for by the article 28 para.4 of the Law N o 25/2005 mentioned above, the principle is that the assessment without the notice is carried out if the the tax delaration has not been acccompanied with all necessary documents, those documents have been enumerated within article 2 of the Commissioner General’s rules No 001/2007 mentioned above and the list of creditors has been mentioned thereinin case the business annual turnover is more or equal to 20,000,000 Frw. [13] The court realises the

fact that the Commissioner General’s rules No 001/2007 mentioned above have been published in the Official Gazette2, no ground for being applied since nowhere they contradict with the law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income, this means that RUHANDO Ernest had to respect the article 2 of those rules, by annexing thereon the list of his creditors. The fact that the Commessioner General’s rules mentioned above, provides for that the taxpayer has to avail the list of his/her creditors, cannot be considered as ultra vires or abusing his powers as the Commercial High Court has realised it, since he is the one in charge of the daily management of that institution3, more importantly that the basis of that list is meaningful, during the tax declaration, it helps to know if those creditors really exist, thus this removes the worry that the tax evasion since those debts reduces the taxable income as it has been explained by the one pleading on behalf of RRA. [14] The court realises, basing on what has been mentioned abaove, providing the direct tax on income for 2008 and 2010 through the assessment without the notice, has been legally done, therefore the deciosion of the judgment No RCOMA 0095/12/HCC with regard to that ground has to be changed. 2 The article 201 para.1 &2 of the Rwandan Constitution of 4/6/2003 as it was ammended and compled 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 […]”. 3 The article 21, para.1 of the law N° 08/2009 of 27/04/2009 determining the organisation, functioning and responsibilities of Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA), provides for 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, […]”.

Page 7

b. To know whether RUHANDO Ernest has to charged the tax calculated on 4% of the turnover. [15] Me MUGIRE Joseph who pleads on behalf of RRA, says that afte that the Commercial High Court demonstrated that the assessment without the notice was illegal, it stated that taxing RUHANDO Ernest basing on 4% was illegal, that it ignored that RRA proved that taxing on the rate of 4% is legal, that the article 29 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides for that provides for that in case of an estimated assessment, the amount of taxes cannot be less than the taxes which would be paid if the taxpayer was to pay under presumptive tax regime which are provided for by article 11 of the Law nº 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income states that Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover. [16] Me NSENGIYUMVA Abel, who pleads on behalf of RUHANDO Ernest, says that RRA on the tax of 4% bases on the article 29 of the Law No 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above, but that article has not been respected since during the assessment without the notice the tax has not to be bellow 4% taxed basing on intermediate income, that this means that the taxpayer without the notice is the one who has to pay the tax, but RUHANDO Ernest has got bankruptcy, therefore he had not to pay tax, except if the tax of 4% is the penalty, while within the

laws on taxes that penalty does not exist. He says that within the paragraph 3 of the article 29 mentioned above there is the wordings “the tax should be paid by considering the presumptive tax regime ”, but in the tax laws nowhere there is “small income“, rather there is “small business“ which is in the article 2 para.6 of the Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on the direct income tax. He concludes saying that there is a judgment No RCOMA 0009/11/CS decided on 7/3/2016 by the Supreme Court, which opposed RRA and MUKAGIHANA Emerthe, it resolved the problem like that RUHANDO Ernest has, that it may be based on in taking the decision.

VIEW OF THE COURT [17] Article 29 para 3 of the Law No 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above provides for that: “[…] in case of an estimated assessment, 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. [18] The article 11, last paragraph of the 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”. [19] The file mentions that after that RUHANDO Ernest has been assessed without notice for the taxable income of 2008 and 2010, the Commissioner General within the response on the opposition, decided that he had to pay the income tax for 2008 amounting to 62,583,302 Frw6 which is equal to 4% of the turnover of that year amounting to 977,864,092 Frw (Annual 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. 5 Intermediate business owners shall pay a lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover. 6 62,583,302 Frw comprises 39,114,564 Frw of the principal tax + 3,911,456 Frw for fines for delay+ 19,557,282 Frw for penalty for decreasing the tax.

Page 8

turnover rectified), and the income tax for 2010 amounting to 66,628,196 Frw7 which is equal to 4% of the turnover of that year amounting to 1,041,065,567 Frw (Annual turnover declared). In addition, the rate of 4% applied is provided for by the article 11 last paragraph of the Law No 16/2005 mentioned above. [20] The court realises that after the analysis of the provisions of the laws mentioned above, the legislator has provided for that the owner of intermediate business is the one who pays the lump sum tax of 4% on annual turnover, this means that instead of calculating the actual income, the tax is calculated as if the taxpayer is under the presumptive tax regime. If the article 29 para.3 of the Law No 25/2005 mentioned above provides for that in case of assessment without notice, the tax should not be bellow of the tax that should be paid if the taxpayer is under the presumptive tax regime, this means that RRA has no other way to provide the tax, than applying the rate of 4% mentioned above, since there is no other rate that has been provided for by the Law No 16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on the direct income tax8. [21] With regard to the fact that RUHANDO Ernest says that he has not to pay the income tax for the above mentioned years since he has got bankruptcy, the court realises that, as mentioned within the letter written by the Commissioner General of RRA, RUHANDO

Ernest (RWATOLE) has been exampted to pay the tax amounting to 11,240,413 Frw and was admitted to have got the bankruptcy of 202,021,082 Frw for the 2009 instead of “Payment position”, this decision has been taken after realising that his opposition had basis with regard to the loss that originated from 2007 which has not been transferred in 2009. It is on that ground therefore, RUHANDO Ernest has not to base on that loss saying that he has not to pay the income tax for 2008 and 2010 which has been imposed through the assessment without the notice, while that loss has been transferred to 2009. [22] Basing on what has been mentioned above, the court realises the fact that RUHANDO Ernest (RWATOLE) has been condemned to pay the tax calculated on 4% of annual turnover through the assessment without notice, nowhere it is in contradiction with the law, thus the decision of the Commercial High Court has to be waived the income tax for 2008 amount to na 62,583,302 Frw and that of 2010 amounting to 66,628,196 Frw has to be changed. c. To know whether the value added tax amounting to 16,508,073 Frw for 2008 has not to be considered as it has been paid basing on the fact that period to carry out an inspection thereon has expired. [23] Me MUGIRE Joseph who pleads on behalf of RRA, says that the Commercial High Courthas ignored that during 2008 RUHANDO Ernest has been accepted that he has

paid the value added tax amounting to 56,623,239 Frw, but he has been denied paying 16,508,703 Frw for from January to April 2008 since RRA has told him that it cannot receive the tax which it cannot carry out an audit thereon because the period for audit has been expired, and decided that the value added tax that has been paid by RUHANDO Ernest amounted to 73,131,312 Frw. He said that the audit is carried out within three years and added that that period is opposable toward 7 66,628,196 Frw comprises 41,642,623 Frw of the principal tax + 4,164,262 Frw for fines for delay + 20,821,311 Frw for penalty for decreasing the tax. 8 This law is the one which is applied to provide the direct income tax.

Page 9

RRA and the taxpayer since on the sid of RRA accepting what the taxpayer says may affect it, thus he realises that it has to affect them both. [24] Me NSENGIYUMVA Abel who pleads on behalf of RUHANDO Ernest, says that with regard to VAT, the taxpayer make the declaration, and when RRA fails to come for audit, what has been made by the taxpayer becomes final and be considered as real.

VIEW OF THE COURT [25] The article 26 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides for that: “When the Tax Administration 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”. [26] The article 26 of the Law n° 25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as it has been ammended and completed by article 3 of the Law No 74/2008 of 31/12/2008, provides for 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 year 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. [27] Within this case, the file mentions that RRA accepts tha RUHANDO Ernest (RWATOLE has declared that he has paid the VAT amounting to 73,131,312 Frw, but the auditors has only accepted to the VAT amounting to 56,623,239 Frwe to the fact due to the fact that the period from January to April 2008 has expired to the extent that to carry out an audit thereon was not was not possible, therefore the VAT for those months may not be accepted. [28] The court realises the fact that RRA had the right to rectify the tax declaration within three yearsas provided for by article 27 of the law mentioned above, this means that it has to bear the effect of that failure, it exclusive accepts what has been done by the taxpayer during the tax declaration. It is on that ground that RRA has to accept all the VAT that has been paid by RUHANDO Ernest (RWATOLE) on the purchases of 2008 amounting to 73,131,312 Frw. [29] The court realises that basing on what has been explained above, the VAT amounting to 16,508,073 Frw for 2008 has to be considered as it has been paid by RUHANDO Ernest (RWATOLE) because the fact that the audit for VAT for 2008 has not been carried out, it has not resulted on his fault, therefore that the verdict of the Commercial High Court deciding that the VAT that has been paid on purchases for 2008 amounting to 73,131,312 Frw has not to be changed.

Page 10

To know whether RRA should be condemned to pay damages [30] Me MUGIRE Joseph says that RRA should not has been condemned to pay the damages amounting to 500,000 Frw since what it has done is legal, that they have to be waved. [31] Me NSENGIYUMVA Abel says that the first judge committed no fault since it is RRA that has involved RUHANDO Ernest in court procedures.

VIEW OF THE COURT [32] The court realises the fact that the Commercial High Court has condemned RRA to pay damages, it committed no fault since it has realised that it is RRA that has involved RUHANDO Ernest in court procedures and it made him to expend for the lawyer. [33] The court realises however, at this level of appeal, the decision for condemnation of damages has to be quashed since it has been realised that the assessment without notice made to RUHANDO Ernest was legal, as explained above, thus RRA was right on this ground. III.THE COURT DECISION [34] It decides that the appeal of RRA has basis on some grounds; [35] It decides that the judgment No RCOMA 0095/12/HCC decided on 15/06/2012 by the Commercial High Court is changed with regard to the income tax and on damages; [36] It decides that providing the direct tax on income for 2008 amounting to 62,583,302 Frw and 2010 amounting to 66,628,196 Frw, made through the assessment without the notice on the rate of 4% of the annual turnover, has been legally done. [37] It orders that the damages and the lawyer’s fees amount to 500,000 Frw that have been condemned to RRA has to be waived. [38] It orders RUHANDO Ernest (RWATOLE) to restitute to RRA 50,000 Frw amounting to ½ of the court fees since it has paid the court fees amounting to 100,000 Frw and therefore there are some grounds for appeal that have basis.