SIKUBWABO v RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) ET AL. (ADD 1)

SIKUBWABO v RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) ET AL. (ADD 1)

The Supreme Court held that the claim for suspension of the auction was filed within the correct time limit as prescribed by article 260, paragraph 6 of Law no 22/2018, which is distinct from the 15-day limit in paragraph 4. The lower courts erred in applying the wrong provision, resulting in injustice. The judgments of the Court of Appeal and Commercial High Court are quashed, and the case is remitted for hearing on the merits.

Citation
RLR V.3-2023
Parties
Applicant: Sikubwabo Raphaël; Respondent: Rwanda Development Board (RDB); Intervener: Umugiraneza Jean Michel; Intervener: Murego Paulin; Intervener: Bank of Africa
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RCOM 00007/2021/SC
Procedural Posture
Review of Judgment for Injustice / Supreme Court Review
Outcome
judgment for applicant; lower court judgments quashed; case remitted for hearing on merits
Legal Topics
Review of Judgments, Auction Suspension, Time Limits for Claims, Mortgage Enforcement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Review of Judgments Auction Suspension Time Limits for Claims Mortgage Enforcement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sikubwabo Raphaël

Applicant

Rwanda Development Board (RDB)

Respondent

Umugiraneza Jean Michel

Intervener

Murego Paulin

Intervener

Bank of Africa

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Review of Judgment for Injustice / Supreme Court Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for suspension of auction was lodged within the prescribed time limit under article 260 of Law no 22/2018
  2. 2 Whether the lower courts erred in applying the wrong time limit for filing the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the claim for suspension of the auction was filed within the correct time limit as prescribed by article 260, paragraph 6 of Law no 22/2018, which is distinct from the 15-day limit in paragraph 4. The lower courts erred in applying the wrong provision, resulting in injustice. The judgments of the Court of Appeal and Commercial High Court are quashed, and the case is remitted for hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

judgment for applicant; lower court judgments quashed; case remitted for hearing on merits

Orders

  • Application for review on grounds of injustice is justified and allowed.
  • Claim for suspension of auction was lodged within the prescribed time limit and should be admitted.