SELECT KALAOS Ltd v. MUTAVUNIKA

SELECT KALAOS Ltd v. MUTAVUNIKA

The Court of Appeal held that Select Kalaos Ltd failed to demonstrate that the High Commercial Court relied on a non-existent law. The lower court applied existing and applicable legal provisions. Therefore, the second appeal was inadmissible under Article 52 of Law N°30/2018. Costs and attorney fees were awarded to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCOMAA 00115/2022/CA
Parties
Appellant: Select Kalaos Ltd; Respondent: Mutavunika Arcade
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
14 June 2023
Case Number
RCOMAA 00115/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Court of Appeal, Second Appeal, Ruling on Admissibility
Outcome
Second appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Admissibility of Second Appeals, Application of Repealed or Inapplicable Law, Lease Disputes, Award of Costs and Attorney Fees
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Admissibility of Second Appeals Application of Repealed or Inapplicable Law Lease Disputes Award of Costs and Attorney Fees

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Select Kalaos Ltd

Appellant

Mutavunika Arcade

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Court of Appeal, Second Appeal, Ruling on Admissibility

  1. 1 Whether the High Commercial Court based its decision on a non-existent law, justifying a second appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 52 of Law N°30/2018
  2. 2 Whether Select Kalaos Ltd is entitled to costs and attorney fees for the second appeal
  3. 3 Whether Mutavunika Arcade is entitled to additional costs and attorney fees for defending the second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Select Kalaos Ltd failed to demonstrate that the High Commercial Court relied on a non-existent law. The lower court applied existing and applicable legal provisions. Therefore, the second appeal was inadmissible under Article 52 of Law N°30/2018. Costs and attorney fees were awarded to Mutavunika Arcade as the prevailing party.

Court Disposition

Second appeal dismissed as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Select Kalaos Ltd to pay Mutavunika Arcade 500,000 Frw as attorney fees and 200,000 Frw as costs for this appeal.
  • Court fees assessed as per work done in the case.