SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

# SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL.

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2024-11-15 - Case/document no.: RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA - Collection: Court of Appeal

## Text

## Page 1

SANLAM AG PLC v NYIRANEZA ET AL. [Rwanda COURT OF APPEAL - RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA (Munyangeri, P.J., Ngagi, Kamere, J.) November 15, 2024] Civil law – Damages resulting from accidents – Motor vehicle accidents – Accidents resulting in the miscarriage by the victim – Damages resulting from accidents causing the miscarriage by the victim are determined based on ordinary laws or applicable general principles of law. Facts: This case arises from an accident involving a vehicle insured by SANLAM PLc which injured Nyiraneza, who was seven (7) months pregnant, resulting in a miscarriage as indicated by a medical report. Nyiraneza, her husband Hakizimana and their two children, requested the insurer to award to them the damages for the death of the child, but SANLAM refused to pay them as it was not provided for by the law. They filed an appeal before the Intermediate Court of Rubavu which ruled that no damages should be awarded because the civil party had no identification and the police report established just after the accident indicates that the victim is Nyiraneza. The claimants appealed against the decision before the High Court seeking damages, it ruled that they should be awarded damages based on the applicable general principles of law. SANLAM PLc was not satisfied and applied for the judgment review on grounds of injustice, and the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. This instant Court examined the

## Page 2

issue of whether the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, should not have applied the general principle of law in determining moral damages. SANLAM AG PLc explains that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, ordered to it to pay the damages amounting to 2,000,000 Frw based on general laws rather than special laws. It further adds that the fact that the special law does not provide for such damages, was sufficient for the Court to order that such damages should not be awarded. The civil parties argue that there was no injustice for SANLAM because the damages awarded arose from the accident that occurred to Nyiraneza and took the life of her unborn child, based on the principle that any act of a person that causes harm to another obliges the author to pay for the damages caused. They further add that a judge is allowed to base his/her decision on general principles of laws on matters not provided for by law. Held: Damages arising from accidents causing the miscarriage to the victim are determined based on ordinary laws or applicable general principles of law. Application for the judgment review the case on grounds of injustice is unfounded. Statutes and statutory referred to: Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 9, 111 Case laws referred to:

## Page 3

RS/INJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA decided by this Court on 28/06/2022, MANIRARORA Jean de Dieu v. RWANDA RUDNIKI Ltd and SANLAM AG Plc. Doctrines referred to : Jacques FLOUR et al., “Droit Civil Les Obligations, Le fait juridique”, 12 éd., Dalloz, 2007, P.97. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE COURT

On 27/07/2018, at around 6:00 p.m., in Nteranya Village, Nyirakigugu Cell, Jenda Sector, Nyabihu District, an accident occurred. A MITSHUBISHI FUSO truck with plate n0 RAD 068 C driven by MUKESHIMANA Laurent hit Nyiraneza, who was seven and a half months pregnant, injuring her and causing her to miscarry. The vehicle was insured by SORAS AG Ltd, which later became SANLAM AG Plc. Nyiraneza, her husband Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine requested SORAS AG Ltd to compensate them for the loss of their child, but SORAS AG Ltd responded that the damages for miscarriage are not provided for by law, and therefore should not be paid. This led them to file a lawsuit to the Intermediate Court of Rubavu seeking for moral damages resulting from the accident.

SORAS AG Ltd, which later became SANLAM AG Plc, defended that no damages should be awarded in the case because there was no provision of law whcih provides for them, and that

## Page 4

the accident report did not identify the victim and that the claimants do not identify the name of the victim.

In the case n0 RC 00005/2019/TGI/RBV decided on 11/10/2019, the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, based on the provisions of article 10 of the Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles and article 24 of Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, ruled that no moral damages should be awarded to the claimants, because the person on whom they are based does not have a complete identitification, there is no birth certificate and also, no death certificate attached to the statement of police which does not mention him, rather it mentions a person called Nyiraneza and that she is not the person who is being relied upon by the plaintiffs in their claim for moral damages.

The Intermediate Court of Rubavu declared unfounded the claim filed by Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, seeking the damages for the unborn child of the mother who was still pregnant, and that no damages should be paid by SORAS AG Ltd which later became SANLAM AG Plc, to the plaintiffs as they are not provided for by law. It ordered to Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine to jointly pay to SORAS AG Ltd the counsel’s fee amounting to five hundred thousand (500,000 Frw) and one hundred thousand (100,000 Frw) for procedural fee.

Nyiraneza, Hakizimana, Uwineza Delphine, and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, represented by Counsel NSABIMANA Jean Damascène, appealed to the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, arguing that the Intermediate Court of Rubavu disregarded the

## Page 5

police report and the medical report dated 28/07/2018. These documents indicated that Nyiraneza had been involved in an accident while pregnant with a 30-week-old baby boy. The medical report confirmed that the accident led to the death of the baby in the womb, necessitating an operation to remove the baby. The appellants contended that, had the accident not occurred, the baby would not have died. They emphasized that there is no greater pain than the loss of an expected child within a family. Consequently, they requested the High Court to overturn the decision of the lower court and award to the plaintiffs the claimed moral damages.

SANLAM AG Plc defended stating that they should not be entitled to damages because they are not provided for in Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles and that the Intermediate Court of Rubavu had carefully analyzed the case and noted that they should not be entitled to any damages, and then requested that the appealed judgment should be sustained.

In the judgment n0 RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, decided on 18/06/2020, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, based on the accident report prepared by the Police on 27/07/2018, indicating that Nyiraneza was hit by a car and taken to Ruhengeri Hospital, and a medical report indicates that the baby Nyiraneza carried was 30 weeks old and died in the mother's womb due to the accident suffered by her mother, explained that the fact that Nyiraneza was pregnant and miscarried due to the accident, and that she even underwent surgery to have the baby removed from her womb, shows that she suffered grief, notes that however the Presidential Order does not provide for damages in cases where

## Page 6

a pregnant woman miscarried due to an accident, the damages must be paid in accordance with general principles of law, and in its discretion the Court awarded to Nyiraneza and her husband, Hakizimana, a total of two million Rwandan Francs (2,000,000 Frw) of damages. However, it found that their children were not entitled to damages, as there was no evidence of harm caused to them to justify their claim.

The High Court, Chamber of Musanze, declared founded the appeal filed only for Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana, and unfounded for their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine, that the judgment n0 RCA 00005/2019/TGI/RBV decided by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu on 11/10/2019, is overruled. It ordered to SORAS AG Ltd which became SANLAM AG Plc to pay to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages amounting to two million five hundred eighty thousand eight hundred francs (2,580,800 Frw).

SANLAM AG Plc applied for the review of the judgment n0 RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS on grounds of injustice, and in the decision n0 212/CJ/2022, the President of the Supreme Court confirmed that the case should be reviewed on grounds of injustice, and transferred it to the Court of Appeal for hearing; the case was registered under n0 RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2022/CA.

The case was heard in public on 06/11/2024, SANLAM AG Plc represented by Counsel Nkiranuye Gratien, while Nyiraneza and Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine were represented by Counsel Ahishakiye Callixte.

In its submissions and pleadings, SANLAM AG Plc avers that it was wronged by the case n0 RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS

## Page 7

because the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, ordered to it to pay to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages of 2,000,000 Frw for the miscarriage suffered by Nyiraneza as a result of a road accident based on general principles of law, and it should have relied on Law n° 41/2001 of 19/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles, as well as Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles. It further adds that in case the Court found otherwise, it would have calculated the damages based on the method used to calculate the moral damages in case n° RCAA 00049/14/SC, and awarded 3000x30x12x0.75%, equivalent to 810,000 Frw, for a total of 1,620,000 Frw to both. Nyiraneza and Hakizimana as well as their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine contended stating that no injustice was suffered by SANLAM AG Plc, especially because it ignored the fact that if the road accident had not occurred, the child would not have died, and that there is no greater pain than the loss of an expected child within a family, who died suddenly in a road accident, and that the damages awarded were based on the general principles of law which state that any act of a person that causes harm to another obliges the author to pay for the damages caused, and that the law allows the judge to base his decision on the principle of law. They are requesting to be awarded counsel’s and procedural fees1.

1 During the hearing, the legal counsel of Nyiraneza et al., after receiving the explanations about the caselaws and the positions set by the courts, withdrew the objection for inadmissibility of the claim filed by SANLAM AG Plc and the parties agreed with the Court on the the issue of whether the damages awarded should be increased, as well as the issue of procedural fees, should not be examined on the basis of the existing positions set by the courts, and should be respected.

## Page 8

Based on the aforementioned elucidations, the Court finds that the following issues should be analysed: i. determine whether the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, would not have relied on a general principle of law in fixing the moral damages; ii. determine the basis of procedural and counsel's fees claimed in the present case. I. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES i. Determine whether the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, would not have relied on a general principle of law in fixing the moral damages

The legal counsel of SANLAM AG Plc states that it was wronged by the case n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS because the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, ordered to it to pay to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages amounting to 2,000,000 Frw for Nyiraneza's miscarriage as a result of a road accident based on general principles of law, while it should have based its decision on Law n° 41/2001 mentioned above and Presidential Order n°31/01 mentioned above, and found that no damages would have been paid as they are not provided for in those laws.

He explains that in the paragraph 12 of the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, under review on grounds of injustice, the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, held that the fact that due to the accident Nyiraneza who was 30 weeks pregnant miscarried indicates that there was damage or suffering due to that accident, in paragraphs 16-18 of that judgment the Court finds that the damages should be awarded based on general

## Page 9

principles of law, because Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 does not provide for damages in the event that a pregnant woman has a miscarriage as a result of an accident, and then it finds that it should be determined at the Court’s discretion, and he notes that the Court disregarded the provisions of article 9 of Law n° 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure which states that a judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law, therefore the Court should not go into further analysis and much more when there are clear laws relating to compensation for bodily injuries resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, and therefore those laws should have been applied.

He explains that those laws which would have been applied, are: - Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles; - Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles, article 1 states that this Presidential order provides the procedure in which the Law n° 41/2001 of 19/2001 determining compensation of victims of personal injury caused by accidents, to be used, article 2 explains that a victim of an accident is a person who has suffered a personal injury caused by a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, since the accident occurred on 27/07/2018 was caused by a motor vehicle FUSO MITSUBISHI with plate number RAD 068 C, and injured Nyiraneza;

## Page 10

this confirms that the Court should have applied the laws stated above; however, the Court held that it awards the moral damages based on general principles of law and its discretion.

He also states that there is a general principle that the special law overrides the general law, due to the fact that the special law did not provide for the moral damages for the miscarriage, it was sufficient for the Court to rule that such damages should not be awarded because they are not provided for by the law. Even what the Court called general principles of law, did not mention those laws; it did not mention that the general principle of law on which it was based, which allowed for the payment of damages of 2,000,000 Frw, and it did not indicate how they are calculated; especially since some of the ordinary laws which include Law n° 32/2016 of 28/08/2016 governing persons and family, which states that a conceived child is entitled to civil rights recognized for every person, provided he/she is born alive. It is clear that the laws distinguish beyond reasonable doubt the living child and the one to be born.

He further submits that concerning the fact that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, awarded to Nyiraneza and Hakizimana two million (2,000,000 Frw) for the moral damages, they note that such analogy made by that Court does not guarantee justice to SANLAM AG Plc because it was ordered to pay the damages not provided for in the relevant law despite the existing clear law. He explains that if the Court has applied the provisions of the specific laws relating to the payment of damages for accidents caused by motor vehicles, it would have found that those laws do not provide for the moral damages due to miscarriage resulting from an accident, and therefore they should

## Page 11

not be awarded as they are not provided for in Law n° 41/2001 or in Presidential Order n° 31/01 referred to above; especially since there are the damages that SANLAM AG Plc paid to Nyiraneza and were received through the case n° RC 00009/2020/TGI/RBV which was decided on 11/06/20202; therefore, the moral damages ordered amounting to 2,000,000 Frw should be dismissed because they are not based on a special law relating to the nature of the subject matter.

He also states that, if the Court finds otherwise and determines that the damages should be awarded, they should be calculated based on the Presidential Order mentioned above and in accordance with the position set in the judgment N° RCAA 00049/14/SC, and 3000x30x12x0.75% equivalent to 810,000 Frw should be awarded; thus, Hakizimana and Nyiraneza would be awarded 810,000 Frw each one, both would be awarded 1,620,000 Frw.

The legal counsel of Nyiraneza and Hakizimana as well as their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine contends that no injustice was suffered by SANLAM AG Plc in the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, because it disregarded that the vehicle TRUCK MITSUBISHI FUSO with plate n° RAD 068C, insured by SANLAM AG Plc, hit Nyiraneza, causing serious injuries and even taking the life of her 30-week- old conceived baby as confirmed by the medical doctor, and that it also disregarded that the awarded damages of 2,000,000 Frw in the case under review on grounds of injustice were based on the fault committed by the motor vehicle insured by it and seriously

2 During the hearing, the legal counsel of SANLAM AG Plc explained that the damages awarded have nothing to do with the fact that there has been a miscarriage resulting from an accident.

## Page 12

harmed Nyiraneza's life, causing her miscarriage, and that the principle is that in case any wrongful act occurs, the responsible party is obliged to fully compensate the injured party for the harm suffered (principle of reparation of damage caused); therefore, if that accident had not occurred, that baby would not have been died, and there is no greater suffering than the loss of a child who was expected in a family, who dies suddenly from an accident.

He further states that the article 9 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, allows the judge to base his/her decision on general principles of law, on matters not provided for by the law, such as the fact that Nyiraneza underwent the medical operation and a stillborn baby of 30 weeks was removed from her womb due to the accident she suffered; the Court of Appeal should consider that the damages were awarded in accordance with the law because they were awarded in accordance with the position of legal doctrines of Jean Chevallier and Louis Bach in their book Droit Civil: Introduction à l'étude du droit – les personnes physiques – la famille – les biens – les obligations – les sûretés, where on page 404 they wrote that any act whatsoever by man which causes damage to another, obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to repair it.

He further adds that the police report contains a document called request for an expert conducted by the Police and a statement of a medical doctor of 28/07/2018 indicating that Nyiraneza had an accident while pregnant with a 30-week-old baby boy weighing one and a half kilograms (1,500 Kgs), and due to such accident the baby died in the womb and she underwent the medical operation for removing the baby from the mother's

## Page 13

womb. Therefore, he finds that there is no injustice in the case under review. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 9 of Law n°22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides as follow: “A judge adjudicates a case on the basis of relevant rules of law. In the absence of such rules, the judge adjudicates according to the rules that he/she would establish if he/she had to act as legislator, relying on precedents, customs, general principles of law and doctrine”.

The applicable general principle of law is that any act whatsoever by man which causes damage to another, obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to repair it.3 This principle has been applied in various cases include the judgment no RCOMAA 00034/2023/CA4, the judgment no RCAA 00003/2024/CA-RCAA 00004/2024/CA5 and the judgment no RS/INJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA6.

3 Jacques FLOUR et al., “Droit Civil Les Obligations, Le fait juridique”, 12 éd., Dalloz, 2007, P.97. 4 See paragraph 38 of case n˚ RCOMAA 00034/2023/CA decided by the Court of Appeal on 19/04/2024, ANGEL COLLECTION Co Ltd v. Muhayimana Uziel and BANK OF KIGALI Plc. 5 See case no RCAA 00003/2024/CA-RCAA 00004/2024/CA decided on 26/04/2024, Mudatsikira Valens and Gisanabagabo Félicien v. HABIMANA Jean Marie Vianney and SINAYOBYE Emmanuel. 6 See paragraph 33 of case RS/INJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA decided on 25/09/2024, NSANZUBUHORO Justin v. NYAMASWA Rukundo Emmanuel.

## Page 14

Having considered article 9 of the aforementioned Law together with the general principle mentioned above, the Court finds that in case it is clear that an ordinary or special law has not provided for a particular matter that should have been addressed in that law, and the judge is then presented with that matter, there is nothing to prevent him/her from resolving it referring to decisions taken by courts, custom, general principles of law and legal doctrines. Furthermore, in case it is clear that the special law does not provide for anything, but it is clear that an act of a person caused a harm to another person, nothing can prevent the injured person by that act from being compensated based on a general principle. In other words, while the Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles and Presidential Order n° 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles do not provide for the procedure for determining moral damages in the event of an accident caused by a motor vehicle resulting in miscarriage, nothing can prevent such damages from being paid based on common law or general principles of law. The determination of damages based on common law and general principles of law was established in the judgment n° RS/INJUST/RC 00013/2021/CA decided by this instant Court on 28/06/2022, MANIRARORA Jean de Dieu v. RWANDA RUDNIKI Ltd and SANLAM AG Plc.

With regard to this case, the case file indicates that the subject matter in the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, which is under review on grounds of injustice, is the moral damages arising from a road accident caused by a vehicle TRUCK MITSHUBISHI FUSO, with plate number RAD 068 C, insured by SORAS AG Ltd, which became SANLAM AG Plc,

## Page 15

which hit Nyiraneza, who was 30 weeks pregnant with a baby boy, causing the baby to die in the womb, and she had to undergo the medical operation for removing the baby. It also shows that Nyiraneza, her husband Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine sued SANLAM AG Plc seeking for the moral damages for the baby who died in the womb as a result of the road accident.

The case file indicates that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, found that since the Presidential Order does not provide for damages in the event of a miscarriage as aresult of an accident, the damages must be paid on basis of the common law, and then in its discretion awarded to Nyiraneza and her husband Hakizimana the damages amounting to two million (2,000,000 Rwf) for both, it noted that their children did not qualify for the damages as there was no clear harm to them that would justify such an award.

The Court finds that what the parties agree on, is that there was a road accident that resulted in the miscarriage of a 30-week- old baby boy, and that the accident was caused by a vehicle TRUCK MITSHUBISHI FUSO, with plate number RAD 068 C, insured by SORAS AG Plc, which later became SANLAM AG Plc, which hit Nyiraneza, and that the damage sought is not provided for by the laws relating to road accidents mentionend above7. What they disagree about is that SANLAM AG Plc argues that since these damages are not provided for by law, there is no reason to award them to Nyiraneza and her husband, and it

7 Law n° 41/2001 of 19/09/2001 determining compensation calculation modalities for people injured or whose property has been damaged by automobiles and Presidential Order n0 31/01 of 25/08/2003 on compensation for personal injury resulting from accidents caused by motor vehicles.

## Page 16

also adds that in case the Court finds otherwise that these damages should be awarded, they should be calculated based on the provisions of the laws mentioned above. While on the side of Nyiraneza and others argue that the damages should have been calculated based on general principles of law as they are not provided for in the laws mentioned above.

The Court finds that, since Nyiraneza was undoubtedly 30 weeks pregnant and had a miscarriage as a result of the accident involving a motor vehicle insured by SANLAM AG Plc, and that she underwent a surgery to have the baby removed, this means that she was harmed by the accident because it was the cause of the death of her unborn child, and the death of the unborn child she was expecting was an act that caused her undoubted grief, and that she and her husband should be awarded moral damages for the loss of her unborn child. Since the counsel for SANLAM AG Plc also admits that the miscarriage occured as a result of the accident, it is clear that there is no basis for him to claim that no moral damages should be awarded simply on the grounds that such damages are not provided for by the aforementioned road accident related law as if that were the only way to determine the damages provided for by the law. The Court also finds that SANLAM AG Plc failed to establish any basis for the exemption from liability for the accident caused by the vehicle it insured.

The Court finds that, in case SANLAM AG Plc does not provide the specific legislation governing the moral damages in circumstances similar to those of Nyiraneza, and the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, disregarded the principle that the special law overrides the ordinary law (specialia generalibus derogant), it did not err in relying on the general principle which states that any act whatsoever by man which causes damage to another,

## Page 17

obliges the person through whose fault it occurred to repair it. Therefore, in the absence of special law determining the procedure for calculating such damages, the general principle of law applies, as proceeded the High Court, Chamber of Musanze.

Regarding the submissions of the counsel for SANLAM AG Plc that, in case the Court finds otherwise and finds that the damages should be awarded, they would be calculated based on the Presidential Order mentioned above and following the position set in the judgment n° RCAA 00049/14/SC, and award 3000x30x12x0.75%, which is equivalent to 810,000 Frw, thus Hakizimana and Nyiraneza would each be awarded 810,000 Frw. The Court finds it unfounded, because as mentioned above, such Order never provided for the calculation of the moral damages resulting from the miscarriage due to a motor vehicle accident; therefore, there is no reason to rely on it in calculating such damages which are not provided in the provisions of that Order.

Based on the explanations provided above, the Court finds that the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, did not err in awarding to Nyiraneza and Hakizimana the moral damages based on general principles of law, as there was no specifal law disregarded; therefore, there is no injustice in the judgment n° RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS decided by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, on 18/06/2020. ii. Determine whether the procedural and counsel’s fees claimed in this case are justified

The legal counsel of Nyiraneza and Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine argues that they are requesting the Court of Appeal to order to SANLAM AG Plc to pay to Hakizimana and Nyiraneza six hundred

## Page 18

thousand francs (600,000 Frw) for procedural fees and two million (2,000,000 Frw) for counsel’s fees.

The legal counsel of SANLAM AG Plc submits that with regard to the procedural fees and counsel’s fees requested by the defendants, the Court should find them unjustified, because the fact that the case is in the Court of Appeal arises from the damages awarded that are not provided for by law. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT

Article 111 of Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 mentioned above provides as follows: " The claim for representation fees is an incidental claim to the principal claim aiming to repay expenses incurred during judicial proceedings. The claim for legal costs is adjudicated at the same time with the principal claim. It can also be admitted and adjudicated even if the principal claim has not been admitted".

The Court finds that, since it has been established that SANLAM AG Plc was not wronged by the judgment nº RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS, decided by the High Court, Musanze Chamber, on 18/06/2020, for which it sought the review and given that Nyiraneza and Hakizimana have pursued the case and hired a lawyer to defend them in this present case, it finds that together with their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine they should be awarded the damages for the expenses incurred in the case in the Court’s discretion, because there is no justification of the amount they are claiming are equivalent to what they have spent, and therefore it awards to all of them a total of five hundred thousand (500,000 Frw) for

## Page 19

counsel's fee and two hundred thousand (200,000 Frw) for the procedural fee, to be paid by SANLAM AG Plc at this instance. III. DECISION OF THE COURT

Declares unfounded the claim filed by SANLAM AG Plc seeking the review on grounds of injustice of the judgment nº RCA 00100/2019/HC/MUS decided by the High Court, Chamber of Musanze, on 18/06/2020.

Orders to SANLAM AG Plc to pay to Nyiraneza, Hakizimana and their children Uwineza Delphine and Uwase Duhirwe Sandrine five hundred thousand francs (500,000 Frw) for counsel’s fee and two hundred thousand (200,000 Frw) for procedural fee at this instance.