RWANDA SOCIAL SECUITY BOARD v. STIPPAG Ltd

RWANDA SOCIAL SECUITY BOARD v. STIPPAG Ltd

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2016-09-09 - Case/document no.: RCA0004/13/CS - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

RWANDA SOCIAL SECUITY BOARD v. STIPPAG Ltd [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCA0004/13/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Gakwaya and Hatangimbabazi, J.) September 9, 2016] Law determining the jurisdiction of courts – Appeal – Jurisdiction of the High Court – Jurisdiction of courts on other decisions considered as final judgments – In case the administrative decision is of the status of court’s final decision, the Specialised Administrative Chamber of Intermediate Court lacks first instance jurisdiction to hear the case in relation to it – All disputes relating to social security are heard by the Specialised Labour Chamber of the Intermediate Court – Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 determining the organisation, functioning, and jurisdiction of courts as amended and complemented to date, articles 83(3o&4o) – Ministerial Order No1932/06 of 8/12/1987 relating to the modalities of warning and computation of the total amount of contribution to be paid and relating evidence as well as the right to defense by the employer, articles 5(2) and 10. Facts: The Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB) notified the Managing Director of STIPPAG Ltd on 30/05/2013 in writing that, there are unpaid social security contributions amounting to 43,395,707, including contributions amounting to 2,880,103, penalties for late payment amounting to 20,257,675 and 20,257,929Frw for late handover of contributions documents. After

the notification, on 06/06/2013, the court bailiff notified STIPPAG Ltd the seizure of its movable properties in case of default of payment within twenty four hours (24 Hours). After the notification, STIPPAG Ltd wrote immediately an administrative appeal to the Rwanda Social Security Board whereby it prayed to cancel the decision taken, and meanwhile before it was given the answer, it seized the High Court with an exparte application in order to obstruct the payment of that amount of money, and this court summoned the Rwanda Social Security Board for further explanations. In the judgment RC0030/13/HC/KIG, the High Court decided that the payment of the requested amount of 43,395,707Frw by Rwanda Social Security Board is provisionally suspended until the delivery of final decision. The Social Security Board was not satisfied with the decision and appeal against it to the Supreme Court whereby it alleges that the High court heard a case which does not fall within its jurisdiction due to the fact that the specialised chamber which heard the claim was competent to hear civil cases rather than being that of specialised administrative Chamber, and that the filing of the exparte application and the summoning of the parties to the case contravenes the law and finally that the High Court admitted the claim while the informal administrative appeal by STIPPAG Ltd was not yet given a

response within the prescribed time limit. STIPPAG Ltd states that the statements of RSSB lack merit given that the claim filed to the High Court did not intend the voidance of any administrative decision since the subject matter was rather relating to the suspension of the payment of money that ought to be paid to RSSB. Held: 1. The fact that the decision which was taken by RSSB is of court’s decision status, the specialised administrative chamber of the Intermediate Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case

Page 2

at first instance as it was alleged by RSSB, because the decisions mentioned in article 83(4o) of the Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and competence of courts as amended and complemented to date, are of administrative decisions status. . The Supreme Court is of the view that even if the decision filed by STIPPAG Ltd does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Specialised Administrative Chamber of the Intermediate Court as held by RSSB, however, even the High Court should not have heard it at first instance because as it is clear in article 81(3o) of the Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and competence of courts as amended and complemented to date, the legislator provided that all disputes in relation to social security shall be heard by the Specialised Labour Chamber of Intermediate Court; therefore the dispute between STIPPAG Ltd and RSSB in relation to the payment of social security contributions should also be heard at first instance by Specialised Labour Chamber of Intermediate Court. Appeal has merit. Appealed judgment quashed. Court fees to the respondent. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts as amended and complemented to date, articles 83(3o&4o). Ministerial Order

No1932/06 of 8/12/1987 relating to the modalities of warning and computation of the total amount of contributions to be paid and relating evidence as well as the right to defense by the employer, articles 5(2) and 10. No case referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] The court bailiff at Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB) addressed a letter to the Managing director of STIPPAG Ltd on 30/05/2013, informing it that there are some unpaid social security contributions, and that the amount of 43,395,707Frw, including contributions of 2,880,103Frw, penalties for late payment amounting to 20,257,675Frw and penalties for late handover of contributions documents amounting to 20,257,929Frw. [2] On 06/06/2013, STIPPAG Ltd received the notification of seizure of its movable properties in case of failure to pay within 24 hours the amount of money due to the Social Security Board. STIPPAG Ltd addressed an administrative appeal to the social security board (RSSB) requesting the cancellation of the decision.

Page 3

[3] Before STIPPAG Ltd was given a response to its appeal, it filed an exparte application in order to get suspension of the payment of the said amount and the High Court summoned the Rwanda Social Security Board in order to get more information. [4] On 11 July 2013, the High Court delivered the judgment RC0030/13/HC/KIG, whereby it decided that the perception of 43,395,707Frw by Rwanda Social Security Board is provisionally suspended until the final decision on the dispute. [5] The Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB) was not satisfied with the decision, and it appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the High Court heard the case which does not fall within its jurisdiction and that the exparte application and the summoning of the parties contravenes the law. In addition it states that the High Court admitted the claim while the administrative appeal by STIPPAG Ltd was not yet answered in time limit provided by the law. [6] On 3/1/2014, the Supreme Court delivered the interlocutory judgment, in which it decided that the objection raised by STIPPAG Ltd for inadmissibility of the claim of Rwanda Social Security Board is groundless. [7] The hearing in merit was held on 28/6/2016, whereby the Rwanda Social Security Board (RSSB) was represented by counsel kamonyo Rugaba Serge while STIPPAG Ltd was represented by Counsel Kiloha Olivier and Counsel Ndamage Raymond. II. LEGAL ISSUE

AND ITS ANALYSIS Whether the High Court was not competent to hear the claim of STIPPAG Ltd at first instance level. [8] RSSB states that the High Court admitted and heard the case which is not in its jurisdiction as it is provided in article 15 of the Organic Law No02/2013/OL of 16/6/2013 modifying and complementing the Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts, since it falls rather in the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court as provided for by article 12(4o) of the aforementioned Organic Law No02/2013/OL of 16/6/2013. It states further that the specialised chamber of the High Court which heard the said claim was competent to hear civil cases instead of being that competent to hear administrative cases. [9] STIPPAG Ltd states that the arguments of RSSB are groundless, since the claim initiated to the High Court is not provided in article 12 of the Organic Law No02/2013/OL of 16/6/2013 stated above, especially that it did not request the annulment of any administrative decision, rather STIPPAG Ltd filed a claim relating to the suspension of the payment of the amount of money ordered by RSSB because there exists evidence indicating the mistake.. It further states that pursuant to article 10 of Ministerial Order No1932/06 of 8/12/1987 relating to the modalities of warning and computation of the total amount of contribution to be paid and relating evidence as well as the right to defense by the employer, the High Court decided the provisional suspension of the payment of 43,395,707Frw to RSSB until the definitive resolution of the dispute.

Page 4

THE VIEW OF THE COURT [10] Article 81(3o) of the organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of courts as amended and complemented to date states that “disputes between social security organisations, between employers and employees in regard to the implementation of social security laws, but without prejudice to the provisions of the laws relating to the institution of commissions empowered to hear some specific categories of disputes”. [11] Article 83(4o) of the aforementioned Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 states that “the specialised administrative chambers of Intermediate Courts shall hear all cases requesting for removal of decisions illegally taken, decisions taken by incompetent persons or persons who act ultravires and which decisions were taken on the last instance”. [12] Article 10(1) of the Ministerial Order No1932/06 of 8/12/1987 Ministerial Order No1932/06 of 8/12/1987 relating to the modalities of warning and computation of the total amount of contribution to be paid and relating evidence as well as the right to defense by the employer states that “the payment of due amount can be suspended by the court if the debtor presents a reasonable ground within fifteen days from the day of notification of payment”. [13] It is indicated in the file of the case that on 24/6/2013, RSSB addressed to STIPPAG Ltd the document

called “notification to pay prior to seizure of movables properties” in which it notified it that failure to pay 43,395,707Frw within 24 hours, it shall proceed to the seizure of its movable properties. It is indicated in addition that, on 24/6/2013, STIPPAG Ltd filed a claim to the High Court, requesting the suspension of the payment of contributions to the Rwanda Social Security Board. [14] The Supreme Court finds that the claim of STIPPAG Ltd intending the suspension of the payment of social security contributions does not figure among the instances provided in article 83(4o) of the aforementioned Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 relating to specialised administrative chambers of Intermediate courts because it is qualified as a final judgment as provided for by article 5(2) of the aforementioned Ministerial Order No1932/06 of 8/12/1987 states that “the said total amount due computed as provided by the previous paragraph, is considered as a final judgment, therefore given that the decision taken by RSSB is of the status of final court’s decision implies that the specialised administrative chamber of Intermediate Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case at first instance level as supported by RSSB because the decisions specified in article 83(4o) of Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 mentioned above are administrative decisions. [15] The supreme Court finds that though the

claim filed by STIPPAG Ltd does not fall within the jurisdiction of the specialised administrative chamber of the Intermediate Court as alleged by RSSB, but again the High Court should not have heard the case at first instance level because as it is provided for by article 81(3o) of the Organic Law No51/2008 of 9/9/2008 mentioned above, the legislator provided that all disputes relating to social security are heard by the specialised labour chamber of intermediate Court therefore the dispute between STIPPAG Ltd and RSSB relating to the payment of social security contributions should also be heard at first instance by the specialised labour chamber of the Intermediate Court.

Page 5

[16] Pursuant to the grounds held in the previous paragraphs, the Supreme Court finds that the judgment Nᵒ RC0030/13/HC/KIG delivered by the High Court at first instance should be quashed, therefore no reason to examine other grounds of appeal raised by RSSB. III. COURT DECISION [17] Finds with merit the appeal lodged by RSSB. [18] Quashes the judgment Nᵒ RC0030/13/HC/KIG delivered by the High Court on 11/7/2013. [19] Orders STIPPAG Ltd to pay court fees.