SEMAPONDO v RWASIMPENZI ET AL

# SEMAPONDO v RWASIMPENZI ET AL

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2021-12-10 - Case/document no.: RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

SEMAPONDO v RWASIMPENZI ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC– (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Nyirinkwaya, Cyanzayire, Hitiyaremye and Kalimunda, J.) December 10, 2021] Review of the case due to injustice – When the President of the Supreme Court examines the report submitted on the case of injustice, and approves that it should be reviewed, the Court tries the case in merit without any other objections that will lead to the dismissal of the case except those of public order. Facts: Semapondo filed a complaint in Gasabo Intermediate Court requesting to order Goboka Cooperative to give him the document which could help him get titles of the land he bought from that Cooperative; to terminate the long-term lease agreement held by Rwasimpenzi; and to award him moral damages because he was the one who bought the land after depositing 4.9 million into the account of that Cooperative, but when he went to register it, he found that the disputed land was registered to another person called Rwasinpenzewa. The court ruled that the land belongs to him, that the long-term lease agreement is annulled and that moral damages have to be was awarded. The Defendant appealed the ruling to the High Court stating that the claim should not be admitted on ground that it is related to the property that was contested in the judgment which became final. Another reason is that the court disregarded the elements of evidence presented to it by the defense and relied only on the claimant's statements. The court ruled that the objection has merit, held that the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court is quashed, and ordered the claimant to award him various compensations. The claimant appealed to the Supreme Court, but following judicial reforms, his appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal, where he claims that the High Court erred in declaring that the judgment RC 1207/14/TB/KCY was final, which is not true. The very court analyzed the appeal, and held that the said judgment was not final, ruling that the judgment rendered by the High Court is reversed on matters related to admissibility of the claim in the Intermediate Court, finding that it should have been admitted, so it should have not been quashed. With regard to the appeal on the merits of the claimant's case in the High Court, the Court of Appeal ruled that it has merit in part, that the disputed land belongs to him, that the long-term lease agreement on that land between him and the Government of Rwanda remains valid, and hence ordered the claimant to award him and Goboka Cooperative damages. After the approval by the Supreme Court that the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court be reviewed on the grounds of being vitiated by injustice, the Claimant argues that the Court disregarded elements of evidence presented to it proving that he was the one who bought the disputed plot of land, while the Defendants and the Land Management and Use Authority state that no elements of evidence were disregarded, but that it instead examined them and found them baseless. Prior to the hearing in merit of this case, the Defendants raised an objection related to the fact that there is no any reason among those mentioned in the provisions of Article 55 of the Law determining the Jurisdiction of Courts presented by the claimant, and the Supreme Court ruled on the bench, and held that the objection was not admitted. The trial continued on the issue of determining the buyer of the disputed plot of land from Goboka Cooperative, which is the subject matter in the instant case, where the Plaintiff claims that the Court of Appeal unfairly disregarded the written evidence and on the testimony of witnesses who knew well how the Cooperative used to provide (sell) plots in 2007. He alleges that among ignored witnesses who bought the land in 2007, include the Former Engineer of Cooperative Goboka, who was responsible for making maps of the plots and showing the buyers where their plots are located.

## Page 2

He further states that even though the Court is the one to confirm the witnesses it should hear, it should not refuse to hear those witnesses who knew exactly how the plots were bought at that time, how the proof of purchase was given, and how the numbers of the plots kept changing, which constitutes the mistake it made, that if these evidences were taken into account, the Court would have found that he was the first buyer of the disputed plot in 2007. He states that another disregarded evidence he presented was the bank deposit slip of 4,900,000 Frw that he deposited into the Cooperative's account, which was approved and signed by the said Cooperative to confirm that they have received the deposited amount in cash on 19/11/2007, which is a proof that there was an agreement on the purchase and the price, because if it wasn't for that, there would be no reason for this payment to have happened. The defendant claims that no evidence was disregarded by the Court of Appeal in finding that Goboka Cooperative was not the seller of the disputed plot of land. He submits that the element of evidence consisting of a bank deposit slip showing that the plaintiff transferred 4,900,000 Frw to the account of the Association GOBOKA. was examined by the Court and the latter found that it did not help to confirm that the money was definitely for the purchase of the plot, especially since the words on the bank deposit slip written by a Bank employee, do not indicate the plot number, its size, location and bordering plots. He goes on to state that the Plaintiff's claim that he bought the plot in 2007 is not founded, because it is not clear how he could have reached the end of 2015 without obtaining land titles, especially since the registration of land for the people who own it is mandatory. He states that another evidence that the Plaintiff's claim that he bought the disputed land is unfounded is that he has never paid taxes for that land, in addition, the defendant has been growing different crops on the disputed land every year, and the plaintiff has never attempted to ask him why he was using his land or has he reported the issue to local leaders, and that attitude clearly shows that the plot is not his and never was. On matters related to the witnesses, the defendant states that the Court did not make a mistake in not summoning them, because it found that their statements could not replace the elements of evidence that the Plaintiff should have presented in support of the bank deposit slip he is referring to, especially that even though he stated that he could not be given the the titles for the land he pretends to have bought, stating that Goboka Cooperative refused to give him a plot allocation certificate, he failed to at least prove to the Court that he used those witnesses to show the authorities that the land is in dispute, so that it would not be registered to someone else. Held: When the President of the Supreme Court examines the report submitted on the case of injustice, and approves that it should be reviewed, the Court tries the case in merit without any other objections that will lead to the dismissal of the case except those of public order. Application for the review of the judgment due to injustice lacks merit; Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law n° 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, articles 55, 62 and 63; Law nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, articles 12 and 111; Law n° 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, article 10; Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production in courts, article 3; Ministerial Order n° 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalties of land registration, article 8. Cases referred to: RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC; Busoro Gervais vs Busoro Mugunga Desire et al rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/06/2019.

## Page 3

I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] On 19/11/2007, Semapondo Charles deposited 4,900,000 FRW to the account of Association Goboka opened in the in the Banque Populaire du Rwanda, and the reason for the deposit was the purchase of Goboka plot. He states that the money was meant to conclude a purchase with Association Goboka, which later became a Cooperative, for a plot number 12438 which later changed to number 1418, located in Nyirabwana Village, Kibagabaga Cell, Kimironko Sector, Gasabo District, Kigali City; after that purchase, the Land Management and Use Authority in Rwanda told him that the land was registered to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, so he filed a complaint in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo seeking to order Goboka Cooperative to hand to him the document which will help him to register the land they bought, to annul the lease agreement which is held by Rwasimpenzi Wellars and to award him moral damages. [2] On 30/06/2017, the very Court rendered the judgment RAD 00073/2016/TGI/GSBO, and held that the disputed land belongs to Semapondo Charles, that the long-term lease agreement held by Rwasimpenzi Wellars is annulled, ordering the Land Management and use Authority in Rwanda to register the concerned plot to Semapondo Charles, and ordered Goboka Cooperative to award him moral damages amounting to 3,700,000 Frw. [3] In issuing its ruling, the instant Court based on the following grounds: - The fact that the element of evidence consisting of the bank deposit slip of 4,900,000 Frw produced by Semapondo Charles, an evidence which is not supported by a purchase agreement or showing the actual plot of land he bought, should not invalidate such element of evidence because its purpose and its price are very clear (the purchase of the plot), and the buyer and the seller are clearly determined, and this is not different from the purchase agreement concluded between the aforementioned parties, especially since Goboka Cooperative did not return to Semapondo Charles the money he paid in order to prove that the purchase agreement they concluded was dissolved. Another reason is that the disputed plot of land was presented to him by an Engineer of Goboka Cooperative. - The fact that the long-term lease agreement in possession of Rwasimpenzi Wellars for the plot number 1418 is invalid because it does not indicate how he acquired it, such a purchase agreement, so it can be determined whether he bought it, or from another acquisition modality, as per Article 10 of Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda. In addition, even if he had a purchase agreement, he would have bought someone else's property because Semapondo Charles was the first buyer. [4] Rwasimpenzi Wellars appealed the ruling to the High Court stating that the claim filed Semapondo Charles in the High Court of Gasabo should not have been admitted on ground that it is related to the property disputed in the case RC 1207/14/TB/KCY which became final. Another ground of appeal he submitted is related to the fact that the Court disregarded elements of evidence he submitted to it, and rather relied only on the claimant’s statements. [5] On 09/11/2017, the Court rendered the judgment RADA 00037/2017/HC/KIG and held that the objection to not admitting the claim because on ground that it contains the same subject matter disputed in another case, has merit, and decided that the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court is quashed, and ordered Semapondo Charles to pay Rwasimpenzi Wellars 200,000 Frw for procedural fee and 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee. [6] Semapondo Charles appealed the decision to the Supreme Court alleging that the High Court erred in declaring the case RC 1207/14/TB/KCY was final while it was not. Following judicial reforms, his appeal was tranferred to the Court of Appeal, and the case was registered to RADAA 00006/2018/CA.

## Page 4

[7] The Court of Appeal examined whether the case RC 1207/14/TB/KCY was final as it was ruled by the High Court, and on 14/06/2019, it held that it was not, and decided that the judgment RADA 00037/2017/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court is reversed on matters related to the admissibility of the claim filed by Semapondo Charles in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, finding that his claim should have been admitted in that Court, and that judgment RAD 00073/2016/TGI/GSBO should not be quashed. [8] With regard to the appeal on the merits of the case Rwasimpenzi Wellars had filed in the High Court, on 04/10/2019, the Court of Appeal held that it has merit in part, that the plot number 1418 located in Nyirabwana Village, Kibagabaga Cell, Kimironko Sector, Gasabo District, Kigali City, belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, that the long-term lease agreement for that plot that was concluded between him and the Government of Rwanda is sustained, ordering Semapondo Charles to pay him 1,000,000 Frw for procedural and counsel fees at that level, and to pay Goboka Cooperative, which is in the liquidation process, 600,000 Frw for counsel fee at that level. [9] The Court of Appeal based its ruling on the ground that the bank deposit slip dated 11/19/2007 cannot be considered as proof that the 4,900,000 Frw mentioned on it was paid by Semapondo Charles for the purchase of the disputed plot number 1418, and that there is no indication that the land that Engineer Musheja Innocent presented to Semapondo Charles is the one in question, while Rwasimpenzi Wellars shows evidence that the land is his own, consisting of an invoice proving that he bought the plot number 12438, and its surface area (size), its location ( Nyirabwana) and its price, and among people who signed on that invoice include Engineer Musheja Innocent (as the verifier) and Bayito Innocent (as the person who approved it), the document confirming the price mentioned in the said "invoice", plot allocation certificate, and other certificates issued by the Authority as well as the long-term land lease agreement. [10] On behalf of Semapondo Charles, Counsel Mutembe Protais wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment RADAA 00006/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 04/10/2019 be reviewed on grounds of being vitiated by injustice. After considering his application, on 21/08/2020, the President of the Supreme Court made a decision number 016/CJ/2020 and held that the judgment RADAA 00006/2018/CA be reviewed on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, and the case was registered to RS/INJUST/ RAD 00002/2020/SC. [11] Counsel Mutembe Protais assisting Semapondo Charles stated that the reason why they requested that the judgement rendered by the Court of Appeal be reviewed due to injustice is that the latter disregarded elements of evidence presented to it proving that he was the real buyer of the plot number 1418, but the representatives of Rwasimpenzi Wellars and Cooperative Goboka, which is in the process of liquidation, as well as the representative of the Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, stated no elements of evidence were disregarde by the Court, that instead, the very Court has examined them and found them to be baseless. [12] The case was heard in public on 14/04/2021, Semapondo Charles assisted by Counsel Mutembe Protais, Rwasimpenzi Wellars represented by Counsel Rugeyo Jean, Cooperative Goboka, which is in liquidation process, represented by Counsel Barahira Eric, and the Land Management and Use Authority did not appear while it was duly summoned. [13] Counsel Rugeyo Jean representing Rwasimpenzi Wellars raised an objection relating to inadmissibility of the claim filed by Semapondo Charles stating his ground is not in accordance with none of the reasons provided under article 55 of Law determining the jurisdiction of the courts, Counsel Barahira Eric also supports such objection, while Counsel Mutembe Protais finds it unfounded because the judgment contains a violation of the law as per Article 55 of the aforementioned Law.

## Page 5

[14] After hearing to the detailed submissions provided by the parties on the raised objection, based on the legal position adopted in the judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC1 where it analyzed article 62, paragraph one, and article 63 of Law no 30/ 2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of courts, and found that Where, upon considering a report on the judgement vitiated by injustice that is submitted to him/her, the President of the Supreme Court decides that the case be readjudicated, he/she forwards the file to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court for him/her to set the date for hearing thereof, the court hears the case in merit anew without any other objections except for those of public order, the instant court decided on the bench, and held that the raised objection lacks merit. [15] The hearing resumed on the issue of determining the real buyer of the disputed plot numbered 1418 of Goboka Cooperative between Semapondo Charles and Rwasimpenzi Wellars. After hearing the explanations and evidence presented by the parties on the matter, the case was closed, the Court informed the parties that the judgment will be pronounced on 30/04/2021, but on that day, it was not pronounced because one of the judges who were members of the panel was assigned to new duties. [16] The case was opened on 31/05/2021, the parties were again informed that the judgment would be pronounced on 25/06/2021, but in its discretion, the court found necessary to summon the witnesses in order to have their explanations regarding the case, the hearing was then scheduled for 09/08/2021. On that day, after hearing the witnesses who had been summoned, the Court decided that Rwasimpenzi Wellars would appear in person, and the hearing was postponed to 16/11/2021. [17] After all these procedures, the Court analyzed the main issue in the instant case which is to determine the right owner of the plot number 1418 between Semapondo Charles and Rwasimpenzi Wellars.

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE 1. To determine the right owner of the plot number 1418 between Semapondo Charles and Rwasimpenzi Wellars [18] Counsel Mutembe Protais, representing Semapondo Charles, submits that the Court of Appeal wronged him by disregarding written elements of evidence, based on the testimony of witnesses who were well aware of how Goboka Cooperative use to provide plots of land in 2007, as per paragraph 8, and paragraph 30 to 33 of the judgment under review due to injustice, this also appears in the copy of the judgment RADA 00037/2017/HC/KIG, paragraph 25. He alleges that among ignored witnesses include Munyanshongore Viateur who bought the plot of land with Cooperative Goboka in 2007 and Musheja Innocent, the Former Engineer of Cooperative Goboka, who was responsible for making maps of the plots and showing the buyers where their plots are located. [19] He further states that even though the Court is the one to confirm the witnesses it should hear, it should not refuse to hear those witnesses who full well knew how the plots of Goboka Cooperative were bought at that time in 2007, how the proof of purchase was provided by such Cooperative, and how the numbers of the plots kept changing, which constitutes the mistake it made, that if these evidences were taken into account, the Court would have found that Semapondo Charles was the first buyer of the disputed plot in 2007.

1 Judgment RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018/SC about Busoro Gervais vs Busoro Mugunga Desire et al., rendered by the Supreme Court on 28/06/2019, paragraph 18.

## Page 6

[20] He further states that another disregarded evidence he presented was the bank deposit slip of 4,900,000 Frw that Semapondo Charles deposited into Goboka Cooperative's account, which was approved and signed by the said Cooperative to confirm that they have received the deposited amount in cash on 19/11/2007, which is a proof that there was an agreement on the purchase and the price, because if it wasn't for that, there would be no reason for this payment to have happened. [21] Counsel Mutembe Protais adds that the surprising thing is that in the judgment RADAA 00006/2018/CA, the Court stated that even though it was accepted that there was a plot for which the purchase money had been paid, nowhere did it confirm that the disputed plot still has the number 1418, and stated that "there is no otherwise, the document would help in identifying the characteristics of the property, including its number, size and location, so that it can be confirmed that the payment made is related to the property in question; asking if the plot number is the most important proof in identifying the disputed plot, while the Court confirmed that Rwasimpenzi Wellars is the owner of plot number 1418, and then come to state that he bought plot number 12438. He avers that the most important thing is not to know the plot number, because the numbers keep changing, that what matters was to know the location of the land because it cannot move to another place, and to analyse whether there wasan agreement between the seller and the buyer. He argues that a purchase agreement was concluded between Semapondo Charles and Goboka Cooperative, and Bayito Innocent who was its manager admitted it before the Police during an interview about the matter. [22] Counsel Rugeyo Jean representing Rwasimpenzi Wellars states that no evidence was ignored by the Court of Appeal in confirming that Semapondo Charles was not the real buyer of plot number 12438 which later became number 1418 of the former Goboka Association. He submits that the element of evidence consisting of a bank deposit slip showing that the plaintiff transferred 4,900,000 Frw to the account of the Association GOBOKA was examined by the Court, and the latter found that it did not help to confirm that the money was definitely for the purchase of the plot 1418, especially since the words on the bank deposit slip (VT for the purchase of Goboka plot) written by a Bank employee, do not indicate the plot number, its size, location and bordering plots. This corroborates the ruling of the Primary Court of Kacyiru in its judgment RC 1207/14/TB/KCY, paragraph 9, rendered on 15/10/2015. [23] He further states that Goboka Association, which later became a Cooperative, itself denied to have sold to Semapondo Charles a plot number 1418, that the person whom they concluded a purchase agreement on that plot is Rwasimpenzi Wellars as mentioned in paragraph 22 of the judgment RADAA00006/2018/CA. He states that Semapondo Charles has presented to the Court other evidences in support of the bank deposit slip that he provided alone, because the words on it were written by a bank employee. [24] Counsel Rugeyo Jean adds that Semapondo Charles 'statements that he bought the plot of land in 2007 is unfounded, because it is not clear how he could have arrived at the end of 2015 without seeking documents, especially since the registration of land for the land owners is mandatory as per the provisions of article 8 of Ministerial Order no 002/2008 of 01/04/2008 determining modalities of land registration. He states that another evidence that Semapondo Charles’ claim that he bought the disputed land is unfounded is that he has never paid taxes for that land, in addition, Rwasimpenzi Wellars has been growing different crops on the disputed land every year, and the plaintiff has never attempted to ask him why he was using his land or has he reported the issue to local leaders, and that attitude clearly shows that the plot number 1418 is not his and never was. [25] On matters related to the witnesses, Semapondo Charles alleges that the Court refused to hear, Counsel Rugeyo Jean argues that the Court did not commit any error in not summoning Musheja Innocent and Munyanshongore Viateur because it found that their statements could not replace the elements of evidence that the Semapondo Charles should have presented in support of the bank deposit slip he is

## Page 7

referring to, especially that even though he stated that he could not be given the the titles for the land he pretends to have bought, stating that Goboka Cooperative refused to give him a plot allocation certificate, he failed to at least prove to the Court that he used those witnesses to show the authorities that the land is in dispute, so that it would not be registered to someone else. [26] In addition to that, he states the defense of Semapondo Charles told the Court that they sued Bayito Innocent, who was the manager Goboka Cooperative, and that manager told the Prosecution that they never sold Semapondo Charles that plot number 1418 as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the judgment RADAA 00006/ 2018/CA. [27] He avers that asking Musheja Innocent to intervene in the case would not have changed anything because he would not contradict the invoice he signed on 30/07/2012 that Goboka Cooperative did for Rwasimpenzi Wellars, confirming that it was for the purchase of the land number 12438 which changed to number 1418 during the land census. He states that, instead, Rwasimpenzi Wellars is the one who has the evidence that he is the real buyer of the disputed plot, which is the bank deposit slip for it, the plot allocation certificate given to Goboka Cooperative, the titles for the property number 12438, the land titles number 1418, and a copy of the judgment rendered by the Primary Court of Kacyiru. He concludes by stating that, based on all the foregoing reasons, he finds that there was no injustice in the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal. [28] Rwasimpenzi Wellars, who was requested by the Court to appear in person, stated that in order to buy the disputed land, he got information from his brother named Rurangwa Alexis, that Goboka had such plot, but because he was at work and busy, his brother did everything on his behalf, and the latter should be the one to explain the to the Court all the steps he went through to find such plot. [29] Counsel Barahira Eric representing Goboka Cooperative which is in liquidation, states that although Semapondo Charles criticizes what was stated by the Court of Appeal in the judgment RADAA 000006/2018/CA regarding the bank deposit slip presented as an evidence, where the Court explained that such element of evidence does not help in knowing the characteristics of the plot that was paid, its number, its size and its location, so there was nothing to base on to confirm that it still has the number 1418 which is the one that refers to the payment he made, when you read those details and combine them with the bank deposit slip that Semapondo Charles presented as a sole evidence, the Court finds that it is clear that Goboka Association did not sell him the plot number 1418. [30] Counsel Barahira Eric further adds that the fact that Semapongo Charles pretends that the number Rwasimpenzi Wellars was given is number 12438 while the Court confirmed that his plot is number 1418, he finds that it is an attempt to create confusion because Goboka used to register its plots and give them numbers, and the plot was given to the buyer in accordance with those numbers; therefore, when a person wanted to register his/her plot for getting a permanent lease agreement, he/she was given a number that is different from that of Goboka, because the Government is the one that issues permanent documents, based on its land census and registration information and numbers it assigned to each plot according to the its location, and it is the only authority mandated to do so. [31] With regard to witnesses that the Court refused to hear, Counsel Barahira Eric states that no mistake was made and no injustice occurred because there were elements of evidence provided consisting of documents issued by those with authority, and the latter confirmed it, therefore, there was no need for the Court to summon such witnesses. He avers that the Court explained it clearly in paragraphs 33 and 34, that apart from that, the Court has the authority to summon the witness if it finds that his/her testimony would not help the trial.

## Page 8

[32] Counsel Habiyambere Clément, representing Rwanda Land Management and Use, submits that Semapondo Charles bought a plot of land but could not register it, because, he states, Goboka Cooperative made it difficult for him and did not give him the necessary documents to register the land. He states that the disputed land belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars who bought and registered it, especially since the registration of land for the land owners is mandatory as per the provisions of Article 20 of the Law governing land in Rwanda. He adds that it was not necessary to summon the witnesses, while there were documents made by Goboka Cooperative, which has its own policy of providing plots. [33] The witnesses that the Court wanted to be questioned about what they know about the disputed land, stated the following: - Ruzindana Munana Jean, who was the Chairman of Board of Directors of Goboka in 2007, explained to the Court that after the government gave them the land in Kibagagaba and divided such land into different plots, the any person who wanted to buy a plot would first visit the plot he wanted, and if he decided to buy, he would then deposit the money to Banque Populaire, and then submit a receipt to finance service, which had to give him a document as a proof of ownership, or conclude with him/her a purchase agreement. He states that both documents contain the plot number. With regard to how Semapondo Charles was given the plot, he told the Court that the got information about it just after this Semapondo Charles sued Goboka, but the information he had received was that he paid for the plot and did not bring a receipt until all plots were taken. - Bayito Innocent, who was the Manager of the Cooperative, told the Court that what ensured that a person would be given a plot in Goboka was the document for ownership for the purchased plot. He explained that before paying, the person looking for a plot had to first visit it, and upon appreciation and payment, the buyer had to submit the receipt to the the Management, and follow up his file until he/she gets that an ownership document. He states that the buyer could loose the purchased plot in case he/she failed to follow up his file in a period of two or three years. He further stated the Court that the fact that Semapondo Charles has a receipt bearing the stamp of Goboka, they may have stamped it but he did not take it to the plot delivery services, because the person who respected the foregoing, was given an ownership document for the bought plot, and in case the receipt was not submitted to the competent authority, the plot was still considered as for sale. - Musheja Innocent, who was the Engineer of Goboka, states that there were two ways of selling plots, that some would come and register, sometimes they would give an advance payment, and others would come and visit the plots and then go to pay. Regarding Semapondo Charles, he states that he showed him the plot with number 12438, he went to pay and brought the receipt, that he does not know what happened next because it was not in his responsibility. On matters regarding to the statement that he latter showed the plot belonging to Semapondo Charles to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, he states that he does not know him, that he had never shown him any plot. After being shown the invoice he signed confirming that the plot with number 12438 belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, he stated that in 2012 there was an invoicing problem, those in finance said that the existing invoices were insufficient, they made other invoices with the numbers of the plots and their size, they instructed the technicians to verify that, that it is possible that the disputed plot number 12438 was registered to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, that he signed the invoice confirming that the size of the plot corresponds to its number, that he did not care about the owner's name. - Munyanshongore Viateur, one of the people who bought the plot with Goboka at that time, told the Court that the person looking for the plot would go to see the engineer and show him the map, and upon appreciation, he would go to pay and bring a receipt thereof, and they

## Page 9

would give him a plot allocation certificate. He states that the he knows the plot sold to Semapondo Charles because their plots are separated by one plot, but the information he got was that Goboka sold it again. - Havumiragira Théophile, who was in charge of the liquidation of the Goboka Cooperative, states that they got information about the issue relating to the fact that Semapondo Charles bought a plot from Goboka, and then Goboka resold it to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, when it was brought to Court, and leaved the case to their lawyer for follow up, that if it was the case, it should be a mistake. - Rurangwa Alexis, who willingly appeared before the Court when he accompanied Rwasimpenzi Wellars, was given the floor to inform the Court about the case, and explained that he was the one who held talks with Goboka's employees, namely Musheja Innocent, Bayito Innocent and their accountant named Julie, on behalf of of Rwasimpenzi Wellars who had sent him. He states that they showed him five (5) plots and he chose two (2) of them including the disputed plot, which he paid and brought to them a receipt thereof, and they gave him an invoice that he signed in the name of Rwasimpenzi Wellars because he was not the owner of the plot, and then they handed to him a plot allocation certificate, which he handed to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, who later and started the process of registering his land. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [34] The issue in this case, which the parties want the Court to resolve, is to determine between Semapondo Charles and Rwasimpenzi Wellars, the person having elements of evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that he is the real buyer of Goboka plot number 12438 which later became number 1418, because each of them claims that it is his. Semapondo Charles states that he was the first buyer in 2007, while Rwasimpenzi Wellars states that he bought it in 2012 and it was registered to no-one. The Goboka cooperative, which is in liquidation process, admits to have sold the land to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, although it does not deny that it also sold the plot to Semapondo Charles, but that that plot no longer had number 1418. [35] Article 12, paragraph one, of the Law Nº 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that the claimant must prove a claim. Failure to do so, the respondent wins the case. The provisions of this article corroborate with the content of article 3, paragraph one, of the Law nº 15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, which reads that “Each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges”. [36] In confirming that the plot now numbered 1418 which is also in question belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, the Court of Appeal found that the bank deposit slip Semapondo Charles relied on as an evidence to claim that he is the real buyer of the disputed plot, should not be considered because such evidence does not portray the characteristics of the plot such as its number, its size, and location in such a way that it would be based on the assumption that the payment he made is related to that plot. That Court ruled that the land belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars because he managed to present to the Court an invoice showing he bought the disputed plot of land number 12438 which became number 1418, stating its area, location (Nyirabwana) and the price, and among the people who signed on that invoice include Musheja Innocent as the verifier and Bayito Innocent as a the person who approved it, the land allocation certificate and other documents issued by the administration including the long-term lease agreement. [37] The elements of evidence presented by Semapondo Charles to prove that he is the real buyer of the disputed plot are the following:

## Page 10

- Bank deposit slip issued by Banque Populaire du Rwanda on 19/11/2007; Such bank deposit slip contains 4,900,000 FRW, for “versement pour achat parcelled Goboka” (payment for the purchase of Goboka plot); - The testimony given by Bayito Innocent who admitted before the Police that he sold a plot to Semapondo Charles; - The testimony of Musheja Innocent who was the Engineer of Goboka, who also confirmed that Semapondo Charles bought the plot from the Goboka Cooperative and that he paid 4,900,000 Frw thereof, and he bases his statements on the fact that no one was allowed to visit the plot without first paying; - The testimony of Munyanshongore Viateur who confirms that the disputed plot belongs to Semapondo Charles. [38] The elements of evidence presented by Rwasimpenzi Wellars to prove that he is the real owner of the disputed plot are the following:

- An invoice of 14,000,000 Frw issued by Goboka Cooperative on 30/07/2012, that invoice was related to the purchase of the plot n° 12438 which later became 1418; - A bank deposit slip for the payment of the plot number 12438; - Plot allocation certificate issued to him by Goboka Cooperative; - The Property titles for the plot number 12438; - Titles for the land number 1418 issued by the Land Management and Use Authority on 17/12/2012; - Judgment RC 1207/14/TB/KCY rendered by the Primary Court of Kacyiru on 15/10/2015, where it was held that no double different agreement existed for the plot number 1418; [39] With regard to the bank deposit slip issued by Banque Populaire du Rwanda 19/11/2007 presented as an evidence that Semapondo Charles bought the disputed plot, the Court finds that there is no doubt that he paid for the plot in Goboka, and Bayito Innocent who was its managing director admitted this before the Court. The court finds, however, as also found by the Court of Appeal, there is no evidence that the plot he was paying for was the one with number 12438 which later became number 1418, which is also the subject matter in this case because there is no plot number on that bankslip. [40] Regarding the testimony of Musheja Innocent, who states that before Semapondo Charles went to pay, he showed him the plot numbered 12438, which is also the subject matter in this case, and the testimony of Munyanshongore Viateur, who states that the plot was sold to Semapondo Charles, that there was information that Goboka sold it again, the Court finds those testimonies baseless because on 30/07/2012, Musheja Innocent signed a receipt confirming that the plot belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars, which is not clear how in 2007 he would have shown the same plot to Semapondo Charles and then came up to confirm that it belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars. His statements that what happened was about to check that the numbers of the plots corresponded to their area (size), should not be considered because it was not what was written on the receipt, and when a person signs a document, he is signing for everything that is written on it. The receipt showing Rwasimpenzi Wellars as having bought the plot number 12438 for 14,000,000 Frw, was signed by Kayisinga Claudien as the preparer, Musheja Innocent signed it as the verifier, and then it was approved by Bayito Innocent. [41] Based on the provisions of Article 12, paragraph one, of the aforementioned Law no 22/2018 of 29/04/2018, and Article 3, paragraph one, of Law no 15/2004 of 12/ 06/2004, and based on the

## Page 11

motivations provided, and in accordance with the finding of the Court of Appeals, the instant Court also finds the evidence provided by Semapondo Charles to be insufficient to show that he is the real buyer of the plot number 12438 which later became number 1418, while the aforementioned elements of evidence presented by Rwasimpenzi Wellars indicates the characteristics of the plot including its number, location and area, and this is also confirmed by the seller of the disputed plot. Based on all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the complaint filed by Semapondo Charles requesting a review of the judgment on the grounds of injustice to be unfounded. 2. Matters related to damages requested in the instant case [42] Semapondo Charles is asking the Court to order Goboka and Rwasimpenzi Wellars Cooperative to compensate him for denying him the opportunity to build on his plot before the prices get high. He avers that the role of the Goboka Cooperative is that it denied him a plot allocation letter (lettre d’attribution de parcelle), and sold his plot to another person, causing him to be go to court from 2013 until today. He submits that the role of Rwasimpenzi Wellars is that he found out that the plot he bought from the Goboka Cooperative had been sold to someone else, instead of asking for his money back, he continued to drag him in the lawsuits, causing him to continue to spend the money he paid to the legal counsels. [43] Based on all the foregoing reasons, Semapondo Charles requests the following damages to be jointly paid to him by Goboka and Rwasimpenzi Wellars: - 2,500,000 Frw for the Counsel fee; - 1,300,000 Frw he paid to Rwasimpenzi Wellars including its interest computed at the bank’s rate (16% per year); - 10,000,000 Frw for the increase of construction costs and pecuniary loss resulted from not exploiting his plot for more that ten (10) years; as well as moral damages for the injustice he suffered. [44] Counsel Rugeyo Jean, representing Rwasimpenzi Wellars, states that Semapondo Charles deserves no compensation because he is the one who dragged himself into the lawsuits, and he has to be held liable of all the consequences thereof. He states that, instead, the Court should order him to award damages to Rwasimpenzi Wellars for dragging him in unnecessary lawsuits. They are hence requesting 3,000,000 Frw for the counsel fee and 500,000 Frw for procedural fee at this level. [45] Counsel Barahira Eric, representing Goboka Cooperative which is in liquidation, states that, based on Article 111 of the Law relating to civil, commercial, labor and administrative procedure, prays the Court to order Semapondo Charles to pay Goboka Cooperative which is in liquidation procees, 500,000 Frw for procedural fee and 1,000,000 Frw for counsel fee for dragging it in frivolous lawsuits. [46] In his submission, Counsel Habiyambere Clément, representing Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, states that he finds that the said Authority was frivolously dragged into lawsuits, because Semapondo Charles admits that the mistake was made by Goboka Cooperative which did not give him the documents to help him register the land he sold to him, that based on the foregoing reasons, he is asking that Land Authority to award him damages amounting to 600,000 Frw, including 100,000 Frw for the procedural fee and 500,000 Frw for case preparation. DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [47] With regard to damages requested by Semapondo Charles, the Court finds that he should not be awarded to them because he has not won anything in this case.

## Page 12

[48] The court finds that the procedural and counsel fee requested by Rwasimpenzi Wellars and Goboka Cooperative, which is in liquidation process should be awarded to them because it was necessary to pursue the case and to hire lawyers to assist them, but because the amount they are requesting is excessive and they failed to prove it, the Court, in its discretion, awarded them 500,000 Frw each for counsel fees and 300,000 Frw for procedural, all totaling to 800,000 Frw for each. [49] On matters relating to the money requested by Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority, the Court finds that it should only be awarded 100,000 Frw for the procedural fee because they failed to prove the money for case preparation they requested, especially since they did not appear in the pretrial conferences, or and the hearings. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [50] Holds that the application filed by Semapondo Charles for the review due to injustice of the judgment RADAA 00006/2018/CA rendered by the Court of Appeal on 04/10/2019, lacks merit; [51] Decides that no injustice was vitiated in the impugned judgment; [52] Holds that the plot number UPI 1/02/09/02/1418 located in Nyirabwana village, Kibagabaga cell, Kimironko sector, Gasabo district, City of Kigali, belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars; [53] Decides that the long-term lease agreement for the disputed plot concluded between Rwasimpenzi Wellars and the Government of Rwanda is sustained; [54] Orders Semapondo Charles to pay Rwasimpenzi Wellars eight hundred thousand Rwandan francs (800,000 Frw) for counsel and procedural fees; [55] Orders Semapondo Charles to pay Goboka Cooperative, which is in liquidation process, eight hundred thousand Rwandan francs (800,000 Frw) for counsel and procedural fees; Orders Semapondo Charles pay Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority one hundred thousand Rwandan francs (100,000 Frw).