TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd,

TRADEMET S.A v. CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd,

The caveat was placed on property that had already been lawfully sold to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, and the delay in mutation was not attributable to the buyer. Therefore, the High Commercial Court did not err in removing the caveat. TRADEMET S.A.'s appeal lacked merit as it sought to affect property no longer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RCOMAA 00116/2022/CA,
Parties
Appellant: TRADEMET S.A.; Respondent: CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd; Respondent: KALINDA Valens
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Case Number
RCOMAA 00116/2022/CA,
Procedural Posture
Commercial Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Removal of Caveat, Immovable Property Transfer, Effect of Sale on Caveat, Standing in Property Disputes
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Property Law Removal of Caveat Immovable Property Transfer Effect of Sale on Caveat Standing in Property Disputes

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TRADEMET S.A.

Appellant

CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd

Respondent

KALINDA Valens

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the High Commercial Court erred in removing the caveat on property registered as UPI:1/01/04/03/2330 and UPI:1/01/04/03/2335
  2. 2 Whether damages awarded against KALINDA Valens should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether additional damages, costs, and attorney fees claimed in this appeal are justified

Ratio Decidendi

The caveat was placed on property that had already been lawfully sold to CROSS INVESTMENT COMPANY Ltd, and the delay in mutation was not attributable to the buyer. Therefore, the High Commercial Court did not err in removing the caveat. TRADEMET S.A.'s appeal lacked merit as it sought to affect property no longer owned by KALINDA Valens, and the damages awarded against KALINDA were justified due to his failure to disclose the sale in earlier proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • TRADEMET S.A.'s appeal is dismissed as lacking merit.
  • The judgment of the High Commercial Court (RCOMA 00635/2022/HCC) dated 02/11/2022 is affirmed.