SANLAM ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALES Plc v IMPANOYIMANA N’ABANDI

SANLAM ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALES Plc v IMPANOYIMANA N’ABANDI

The Supreme Court held that SANLAM could not raise the salary evidence for the first time at the review stage, as it was not litigated in lower courts. There was no injustice in the High Court's decision to base compensation on SMIG. The application for review was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2022/SC
Parties
Applicant: SANLAM ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALES Plc; Respondent: Impanoyimana Epaphrace; Respondent: Niragire Delphine; Respondent: Musabe Irihafi Rémy; Respondent: Niyobyose Ange Gabin; Respondent: Bizimungu; Respondent: Mbarushimana Dancille; Respondent: Turyahambwa Jean d’Amour; Respondent: Tushemererwe Marie Grâce
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
1 March 2024
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2022/SC
Procedural Posture
Civil / Supreme Court Review on Grounds of Injustice
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; prior judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Review on Grounds of Injustice, Compensation for Road Accident, Insurance Liability, Admissibility of New Issues on Review
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Tort Law Review on Grounds of Injustice Compensation for Road Accident Insurance Liability Admissibility of New Issues on Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SANLAM ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALES Plc

Applicant

Impanoyimana Epaphrace

Respondent

Niragire Delphine

Respondent

Musabe Irihafi Rémy

Respondent

Niyobyose Ange Gabin

Respondent

Bizimungu

Respondent

Mbarushimana Dancille

Respondent

Turyahambwa Jean d’Amour

Respondent

Tushemererwe Marie Grâce

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Supreme Court Review on Grounds of Injustice

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court can review issues not previously litigated in lower courts on grounds of injustice
  2. 2 Whether compensation should be calculated based on actual salary or SMIG when not previously raised

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that SANLAM could not raise the salary evidence for the first time at the review stage, as it was not litigated in lower courts. There was no injustice in the High Court's decision to base compensation on SMIG. The application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; prior judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • No change to the High Court judgment RCA 00062/2021/HC/MUS.
  • SANLAM AG Plc to pay 500,000 Frw in legal fees to Niragire Delphine, Impanoyimana Epaphrace, Musabe Irihafi Rémy, and Niyobyose Ange Gabin collectively.