RLR-V.4- 2018

# RLR-V.4- 2018

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Rwanda law reports - Date: 2018-10-31 - Collection: Supreme Court

## Text

## Page 1

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT P.o. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2018 Ukwakira, 2018 Law Report, V. 4 - 2018 October, 2018 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 2

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA SUPREME COURT Po. Box. 2197 KIGALI www.judiciary.gov.rw

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO Icyegeranyo V. 4 - 2018 Ukwakira, 2018 Law Report , V. 4 - 2018 October, 2018 RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 4

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO IKINYARWANDA

## Page 6

i ISHAKIRO

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI ...................................iii KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA ................................................. iv IRIBURIRO .............................................................................. vii IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO...............................viii INYITO ....................................................................................viii AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO .......................................... ix IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE ..................................................... xi AMAGAMBO MPINE ............................................................. xii KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA ................. 1 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA ............................. 13 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI ............................................................................... 29 FOREST COMPANY VOLCANOES GORILLAS (FCVG) Ltd v IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) ...................... 59 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO .......................................................................... 85 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI........... 107 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI ............ 125

## Page 8

ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

ITSINDA RY’ABANYAMATEGEKO BATEGUYE IMANZA

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

iii

## Page 9

KOMITE YEMEZA IMANZA

MUGENZI Louis Marie : Perezida wa Komite Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Visi Perezida wa Komite Umwalimu muri Kaminuza y’u Rwanda

RUTAZANA Angeline : Visi Perezida w’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

BAGABO Faustin : Avoka mu Rugaga rw’Abavoka

BWIZA N. Blanche : Umugenzuzi w’Inkiko

GIRANEZA Clémentine : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’Isumbuye

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Umushinjacyaha ku Rwego rw’Igihugu

KALIWABO Charles : Umucamanza w’Urukiko rw’Ubujurire

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas : Umuyobozi wa ILPD

iv

## Page 10

v ABAGIZE KOMITE Y’UBWANDITSI

KIBUKA Jean Luc : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles : Visi Perezida w’URukiko Rukuru rwa Gisirikare

MUREREREHE Saouda : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rukuru

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Umucamanza mu Rukiko rw’ Ubujurire

KABIBI Specioza : Intumwa ya Leta

RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Umugenzuzi Mukuru w’Inkiko UWANTEGE Yvette : Umucamanza mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye

## Page 12

vii IRIBURIRO Basomyi bacu, Urwego rw’ubucamanza runejejwe no kubagezaho nomero ya kane y’Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’Inkiko mu mwaka wa 2018. Turashimira abakomeje kutugezaho inkunga y’ibitekerezo, mu rwego rwo kunoza imitegurire y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, tunashishikariza n’abandi bagerwaho nacyo, nabo gutanga inkunga y’ibitekerezo. Ibyo bizadufasha kurushaho kunoza imitegurire ya cyo. Muri iyi nomero y’icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko murasangamo imanza zirindwi (7) zikubiyemo imanza ebyiri (2) z’imiburanishirize y’imanza, mu gihe izindi eshanu (5) ari izi izikurikira; urubanza rumwe (1) rw’imbonezamubano, imanza ebyiri (2) z’ubucuruzi, n’imanza ebyiri (2) nshinjabyaha. Tuboneyeho no kubibutsa ko imanza ziri muri iki cyegeranyo ziboneka no ku rubuga rwa murandasi rw’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ruborohereza kubona urubanza mukeneye mu buryo bwihuse, kuri http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/kn/nav.do Prof. Sam RUGEGE Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga Perezida w’Inama Nkuru y’Ubucamanza

## Page 13

IBIKUBIYE MURI IKI CYEGERANYO Iki cyegeranyo gikubiyemo imanza zaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Urukiko rw’Ubujurire n’Urukiko Rukuru zikoreshwa hakurikijwe inyito ivugwa hasi. INYITO Imanza ziri muri iyi volime zikoreshwa muri ubu buryo: [2018] 4 RLR

viii

## Page 14

AMATEGEKO YASHINGIWEHO Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ingingo ya 164....................................62 Umugereka wo kuwa 15/11/2003 w’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku bijyanye n’ikumira n’ihanwa ry’icuruzwa ry’abantu by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, ingingo ya 3……110 Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 95, igika cya 5…………………………88 Itegeko No37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, Ingingo ya 10……………………………………62 Itegeko No12/2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, Ingingo ya 87 na 89…………………………………………….. Itegeko No16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 16 na 37...............................63 Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 10,45,60,63 na 64…………………………......63 ingingo ya 46 bis n’iya 48...............................................88 Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3 niya 9………………32 Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 27,250,251 niya 252...................................110 ingingo ya 71,78, 98, 99...............................................128 Itegeko No21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ix

## Page 15

ingingo ya 3…………………………………………………..4 ingingo ya 142................................................................15 ingingo ya 198 n’iya 248................................................88 Itegeko No06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 12 na16……………………………..63 Itegeko teka ryo kuwa 30/07/1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258, 259 niya 260…32

x ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 16

IMANZA ZIFASHISHIJWE Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro v. Misigaro Louis, RCOMA0074/11/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 11/04/2014…………………………………………………………...63 Ikigo imisoro n’Amahôro v. Rubare Josias, RCOMA0149/12/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/03/2016...................63 Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL, AGC (Investments) Limited v Commissioner of Taxation, Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443………………...88 Twagiramungu v. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, RCOMAA0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA 0061/16/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 14/07/211………………………….88 Ubushinjacyaha v. Nshutirakiza Narcisse, RPA0047/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 27/03/2015……………128

xi

## Page 17

AMAGAMBO MPINE Amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete bwemezwa gusa n’urukiko iyo hari impamvu, icyo gihe urukiko rwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzima gatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwa banyirayo kugirango baryozwe ibikorwa bya sosiyete nkaho ari ibyabo – Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ingingo ya 95 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO................................................................85 Uburyozwe – Gufatira umutungo w’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete hagamijwe kuwugurisha – Gufatira imitungo y’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete nta cyemezo cy’urukiko kigaragaza uburyozwe bwabo mu gutuma itishyura imisoro yaciwe, n’ ukwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzimagatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwabayozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bayo – Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ingingo ya 95, Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 46 bis. MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO................................................................85 Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inzitizi – Ibisabwa ngo ikirego cyakiriwe – Inyungu yo gutanga ikirego – Inyungu igomba kuba iriho igihe ikirego gitangwa, ntibyemewe ko umuntu aregera inyungu ishobora kuzabaho mu gihe kizaza – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye xii

## Page 18

imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo yi 142 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA…………..13 Amategeko agenga imiburanshirize y’imanza z’umurimo – Inzitizi – Ihamagazwa ry’amashyirahamwe adafite ubuzima gatozi – Ishyirahamwe ridafite ubuzima gatozi iyo ryabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza nyuma rigahagarika imirimo yaryo,rishobora kwongera kuhamagazwa mu rubanza rihagarariwe n’uwari umuyoboi waryo kuko ibikorwa iryo shyirahamwe ryitirirwa ari ibikorwa by’abanyamuryango akaba ari nabo baba bari mubufatanye – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.ingingo ya 3. KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA…1 Amategeko agenga imisoro – Umusoro ku nyongeragaciro – Umusoro ku nyungu – Amafaranga ahabwa uwatsindiye isoko rya Leta kugirango atangire imirimo iyo ariyo yose asonerwa umusoro kuko adafatwa nkubwishyu – Itegeko Nº37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 10 – Itegeko Nº12/2007 ryo kuwa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ingingo ya 86. FOREST COMPANY VOLCANOES GORILLAS (FCVG) Ltd v IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)...............................................................................59 Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Ibigize icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Kugira ngo icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kibeho hagomba ibintu bitatu ari byo: ibikorwa byakozwe nko gushakisha umuntu, kwimurira umuntu ahandi, uburyo bwakoreshejwe burimo gukoresha xiii AMAGAMBO MPINE

## Page 19

ingufu, uburiganya n’ibikangisho, ndetse n’ikigamijwe nko kumwangiza ubuzima no kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe. UBUSHINJACYAHA v.MUKAKABANO N’UNDI 107 Ibyaha byo gucuruza abantu – Kuvana abantu mu gihugu ugamije kubacuruza – Kuba umuntu ujyanywe ari mukuru kandi nawe yashakaga kugenda ntibyaba impamvu ituma uwabikoze adakurikiranwa kuko bikorwa mu buryo bw’uburiganya – Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Ingingo ya 251 – Umugereka wo kuwa 15/11/2003 w’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku bijyanye n’ikumira n’ihanwa ry’icuruzwa ry’abantu by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, ingingo ya 3. UBUSHINJACYAHA v.MUKAKABANO N’UNDI.107 Igabanyagihano – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Umucamanza niwe uha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Igihe icyaha cyakoranywe ubugome bukabije byaba impamvu yo kutagabanyirizwa igihano – Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 71. UBUSHINJACYAHA v.UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI..125 Uburyozwacyaha bw’icyitso – Kuba byonyine uregwa nk’icyitso yari aho icyaha cyakorewe kabone nubwo we ntakintu gifatika yakoze, bitera akanyabugabo uwari urimo gukora icyaha, iyo myitwarire imushyira mu rwego rw’icyitso cy’uwakoze icyaha – Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 98. UBUSHINJACYAHA v.UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI..125 xiv ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO

## Page 20

xv AMAGAMBO MPINE

Indishyi – Igenwa ry’ indishyi zikomoka ku ikosa – Usaba indishyi kubera ibyo yangirijwe agomba kugaragaza ikosa yakorewe, ibyo yangirijwe, n’isano hagati y’ikosa n’ibyo yangirijwe TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI.......................................................29 Uburyozwe – Uburyozwe bukomoka ku ibicuruzwa – Ubucuruzi bw’imiti – umucuruzi w’imiti aryozwa ingaruka mbi zatewe n’umuti utujuje ubuziranenge yagurishije – Itegeko teka ryo kuwa 30/07/1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 259 niya 260. TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI.......................................................29

## Page 22

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA

## Page 24

IMANZA ZEREKERANYE N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA Z’IMBONEZAMUBANO, IZ’UBUCURUZI, IZ’UMURIMO N’IZ’UBUTEGETSI

## Page 26

KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/REV/SOC 0001/16/CS – RSOCAA 00002/2016/SC (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Ngagi, J.) 09 Werurwe 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanshirize y’imanza z’umurimo – Inzitizi – Ihamagazwa ry’amashyirahamwe adafite ubuzima gatozi – Ishyirahamwe ridafite ubuzima gatozi iyo ryabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza nyuma rigahagarika imirimo yaryo,rishobora kwongera kuhamagazwa mu rubanza rihagarariwe n’uwari umuyoboi waryo kuko ibikorwa iryo shyirahamwe ryitirirwa ari ibikorwa by’abanyamuryango akaba ari nabo baba bari mubufatanye – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.ingingo ya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kanyarukiko yareze World Vision Rwanda mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ayirega kutamuha ibyo amategeko amugenera harimo n’agenga abakozi bakorera World Vision Rwanda, avuga ko atahawe umushahara n’ibindi agenerwa n’amategeko ku mwanya mushya wa “SD Operator” yari yatangiye gukoraho, kwanga nkana gushyira mu nyandiko amasezerano y’akazi bagiranye, kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko. Akaba abisabira indishyi; urwo rukiko rwategetse WVR guha Kanyarukiko indishyi. 1

## Page 27

World Vision Rwanda yajuririye Urukiko Rukuru maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro maze rutegeka Kanyarukiko kuyiha amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka. Kanyarukiko yajuririye nawe Urukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga kwakira ubujurire bwa World Vision Rwanda kuko bwatanzwe bukerewe, ko Kisaro ADP Committee itagombaga guhatirwa kugoboka mu rubanza bwa mbere mu rwego rw’ubujurire ntawayibisabiye, ko kandi anenga Urukiko Rukuru kuba rwaremeje ko umukoresha we yari Kisaro ADP Committee rwirengagije ibimenyetso yari yarushyikirije byerekana ko yari umukozi wa World Vision Rwanda, ikaba ari yo yagombaga gusesa amasezerano yagiranye na Kisaro ADP Committee nk’agashami ka World Vision Rwanda. Ikindi ngo ntiyashyizwe ku umwanya wa “SD Operator” mu gihe yarugaragarije ibimenyetso byerekana ko yakoze kuri uwo mwanya. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cye nta shingiro gifite. Kanyarukiko yongeye gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga asaba gukosora no gusobanura urubanza RSOCAA0002/12/CS kuko ubujurire bwe bwanditswe kuri RSOCAA0002/14/CS, nyamara kuri kopi y’urubanza yahawe hakagaragaraho numero itandukanye n'iyo. Kandi ko hari nibindi bika by'urubanza, harimo ibyo Urukiko rwagiye ruvuga ku buryo umuntu ubisomye adasobanukirwa icyo rwashakaga kuvuga, ku buryo yabyumva mu buryo butandukanye. Urwo Rukiko rwemeje ko ikosa ryakozwe mu myandikire rigomba gukosorwa, ndetse ruvuga ko nta kidasobanutse mu bika yari yavuze ko bitasobanutse. Yongeye nanone gutanga ikirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya, Kisaro ADP Committee itanga inzitizi yo kutakira ikirego kuko nta gishya kirugaragaramo, Kanyarukiko yasubije ko nta cyo bavuze kuri iyo nzitizi kuko ntayo bagaragarijwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 2

## Page 28

ahubwo nawe atanga inzitizi ijyanjye n’iyitaba ry’ababuranyi, kuko Kisaro ADP Committee itakomeza guhamagazwa muri uru rubanza kandi itakiriho. Kisaro ADP Committee yireguye ivuga ko inzitizi yatanzwe n’urega nta shingiro ifite kuko kuba Kisaro ADP Committee yaba itakiriho bidakuraho gukurikirana cyangwa gukurikiranwa ku byabaye ikiriho, cyane cyane ko iki kirego irimo nk'iyagobokeshejwe kikaba ari ikirego gisubirishijwemo ingingo nshya, kandi kikaba cyaratanzwe Kisaro ADP Committee iriho ndetse n'impamvu yateye Kanyarukiko gutanga ikirego akaba ari iseswa ry'amasezerano y'akazi yagiranye na Kisaro ADP Committee bivuga ko nta buryo idakwiye kuba muri uru rubanza. World Vision Rwanda ivuga ko niba Kisaro ADP Committee yarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, ntabwo urega yavuga ko itagomba kugaragara muri uru rubanza Incamake y’icyemezo: Ishyirahamwe ridafite ubuzima gatozi iyo ryabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza ariko rigahagarika imirimo yaryo,rishobora kwongera kuhamagazwa mu rubanza rihagarariwe n’uwari umuyobozi waryo kuko ibikorwa iryo shyirahamwe ryitirirwa ari ibikorwa by’abanyamuryango akaba ari nabo baba bari mubufatanye, bityo kisaro ADP igomba kuguma mu rubanza. Inzitizi nta shingiro ifite. Urubanza ruzakomeza mu mizi; Amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe. Amategeko yashingiweho: 3 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 29

Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/ 2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo ya 3. Nta manza zifashishijwe: Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César arega World Vision Rwanda kutamuha ibyo amategeko amugenera harimo n’agenga abakozi bakorera World Vision Rwanda, kutamuha umushahara n’ibindi agenerwa n’amategeko ku mwanya mushya wa “SD Operator” yatangiye gukoraho kuwa 5 Ugushyingo 2009, kwanga nkana gushyira mu nyandiko amasezerano y’akazi bagiranye nyamara atarahwemye kubibibutsa, kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko nta n’icyo bashingiyeho, kubuzwa amahwemo no kusiragizwa mu kazi azizwa gusa ibitekerezo yatanze, cyane cyane ku kuba ari mu basabaga ko bahabwa amasezerano yanditse y’akazi. [2] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César, mu kirego cye, yasabaga nk’umukozi wa World Vision Rwanda, indishyi zose hamwe zingana na 125.892.536Frw hiyongereyeho 176.040USD. Kuwa 7/12/2012, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo, rwaciye urubanza RSOC 0107/11/TGI/GSBO, rutegeka World Vision Rwanda guha Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César 26.279.472Frw na 108.000USD. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 4

## Page 30

[3] World Vision Rwanda ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ijuririra Urukiko Rukuru, kuwa 08/01/2013, urwo Rukiko ruca urubanza RSOCA 0004/13/HC/KIG, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwatanzwe na World Vision Rwanda bufite ishingiro, rutegeka Kanyarukiko guha World Vision Rwanda 100.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 300.000Frw y’igihembo cy’Avoka. [4] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César ntiyishimiye imikirize y’urubanza ajuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga avuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rutagombaga kwakira ubujurire bwa World Vision Rwanda kuko bwatanzwe bukerewe, ko Kisaro ADP Committee itagombaga guhatirwa kugoboka mu rubanza bwa mbere mu rwego rw’ubujurire ntawayibisabiye, ko kandi anenga Urukiko Rukuru kuba rwaremeje ko umukoresha we yari Kisaro ADP Committee rwirengagije ibimenyetso yari yarushyikirije byerekana ko yari umukozi wa World Vision Rwanda, ikaba ari yo yagombaga gusesa amasezerano yagiranye na Kisaro ADP Committee nk’agashami ka World Vision Rwanda. [5] Mu rubanza RSOCAA0002/12/CS rwaciwe kuwa 15/01 /2016, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César nta shingiro bufite, rwemeza ko urubanza RSOCA0004/ 13/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Kigali kuwa 10/03/2014 rudahindutse. [6] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César yongeye gutanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’ Ikirenga asaba gukosora no gusobanura urubanza RSOCAA0002/12/CS rwaciwe kuwa 15/01/2016 rumaze kuvugwa, kuko ubujurire bwe bwanditswe kuri RSOCAA0002/14/CS, nyamara kuri kopi y’urubanza yahawe hakagaragaraho numero itandukanye n'iyo, kuko hariho RSOCAA000 2/12/CS, akaba ariyo mpamvu atanga ikirego kigamije gukosoza iyo nimero y‘urubanza. Yavugaga, na none, 5 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 31

ko mu bika bya 11, 17, 19, 22, 40, 41 n’icya 45 by’urubanza, harimo ibyo Urukiko rwagiye ruvuga ku buryo umuntu ubisomye adasobanukirwa icyo rwashakaga kuvuga, ku buryo yabyumva mu buryo butandukanye, akaba ari yo mpamvu ahisemo kubisobanuza kugira ngo yumve icyo Urukiko rwashatse kuvuga muri ibyo bika. [7] Kuwa 24/06/2016, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciye urubanza RS/RECT&INTER/SOC0001/16/CS, rwemeza ko ikosa ryakozwe mu myandikire rigomba gukosorwa, ahanditse urubanza RSOCAA0002/12/CS hakandikwa RSOCAA 0002/14/CS, ndetse ruvuga ko nta kidasobanutse mu bika bya 11, 17, 22, 40, 41 na 45 by’urwo rubanza. [8] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César yatanze ikirego cyo gusubirishamo ingingo nshya urubanza RSOCAA0002/14/CS asaba gusuzuma ibibazo bikurikira: 1º Gusuzuma niba hari ibimenyetso kamarampaka Urukiko rutabonye n’amakosa akabije yakozwe mu guca urubanza, byashingirwaho nk’ingingo nshya, Urukiko rukongera gusuzuma iby’iyakirwa ry’ubujurire bwa World Vision Rwanda mu Rukiko Rukuru ; 2º Gusuzuma niba hari ibimenyetso Urukiko rutabonye n’amakosa akabije yakozwe yo kwitiranya uko ibintu byagenze, byashingirwaho nk’ingingo nshya, hakongera gusuzumwa niba Kisaro ADP Committee ari urwego (structure) rwa World Vision Rwanda ; 3º Gusuzuma niba hari ibimenyetso kamarampaka Urukiko rutabonye hakaba hari amakosa akabije yakozwe mu guca urubanza, byashingirwaho nk’ingingo nshya, ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 6

## Page 32

Urukiko rukongera gusuzuma niba Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César yari umukozi wa Worl Vision Rwanda 4º Gusuzuma indishyi asaba ko yagenerwa n’uru Rukiko. [9] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame kuwa 20/02/2018, Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César yunganiwe na Me Rutaganira Alexandre, World Vision Rwanda iburanirwa na Me Muhozi Paulin afatanyije na Me Gasarabwe Claudine, naho Kisaro ADP Committee ihagarariwe na Habarurema Phocas, ikaba yari yunganiwe na Me Gatera Kanisa. [10] Kisaro ADP Committee yatanze inzitizi yo kutakira iki kirego cyo gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya kubera ko nta gishya kigaragara muri iki kirego kuko byose byaburanywe, Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César asubiza ko iyo nzitizi ntayo babonye, akaba ariyo mpamvu ntacyo bayivuzeho. Yahise avuga ko nabo batanze inzitizi ijyanjye n’iyitaba ry’ababuranyi, kuko Kisaro ADP Committee itakiriho. Iki kibazo cyo kumenya niba Kisaro ADP Committee yakomeza guhamagazwa muri uru rubanza akaba aricyo kigomba kubanza gusuzumwa. II. IKIBAZO KIRI MU RUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYACYO Kumenya niba Kisaro ADP Committee yavanwa mu rubanza ku mpamvu ko yaba itakiriho [11] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César avuga ko Kisaro ADP Committee ubu ntaho izwi ibarizwa akaba ntaho igaragara, ko idakwiye kugaragara nk’umuburanyi, asaba ko urubanza ruburanishwa rwakomeza itarurimo kuko itakiriho. Avuga ko mu gihe urubanza rwaburanishijwe nk’iriho bakagira icyo 7 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 33

bagenerwa uwagaragara mu rukiko wese avuga ko ahagarariye Kisaro ADP Committee, kandi urwo rwego ubu ntaho ruzwi cyangwa rubarizwa mu Rwanda, yabanza kugaragaza aho Kisaro ADP Committee avuga ko ahagarariye ibarizwa, ibyo ikora ndetse na bene yo. [12] Kisaro ADP Committee ivuga ko ibyo urega avuga nta shingiro bifite kuko kuba Kisaro ADP Committee yaba itakiriho bidakuraho gukurikirana cyangwa gukurikiranwa ku byabaye ikiriho, iki kirego irimo nk'iyagobokeshejwe kikaba ari ikirego gisubirishijwemo ingingo nshya, kandi kikaba cyaratanzwe Kisaro ADP Committee iriho ndetse n'impamvu yateye Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques Cesar gutanga ikirego akaba ari isozwa ry'amasezerano y'akazi yagiranye na Kisaro ADP Committee bivuga ko nta buryo idakwiye kuba muri uru rubanza. Ibyo kuba ihamagara yarasinywe n'uwahoze ari umuyobozi wayo nta kibazo bikwiye gutera kubera ko n'ubusanzwe ariwe wayisinyagaho, kandi akaba ari ikibazo (ikirego) kimwe kigikomeza. Ibyo bindi ntibikwiye kuba byaba ikibazo cy'urega, ahubwo birareba Kisaro ADP Committee. [13] Abahagarariye World Vision Rwanda bavuga ko niba Kisaro ADP Committee yarabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza rusubirishwamo ingingo nshya, ntabwo Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César yavuga ko Kisaro ADP Committee itagomba kugaragara muri uru rubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ingingo ya 2 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/ 2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ibi bikurikira: ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 8

## Page 34

“Ikirego nticyemerwa mu rukiko iyo urega adafite ububasha, inyungu n’ubushobozi bwo kurega. Ibivugwa mu gika cya mbere cy’iyi ngingo bireba n’amashyirahamwe, imiryango n’ibigo bidafite ubuzima gatozi kuko bidashobora kurega, bitabujije ariko ko bishobora kuregwa.” Naho ingingo ya 185 y’iri Tegeko rimaze kuvugwa iteganya ko “Gusaba gusubirishamo urubanza ingingo nshya byemererwa gusa abantu babaye ababuranyi cyangwa bahagarariwe mu rubanza rusabirwa gusubirwamo”. [15] Dosiye igaragaza ko Kisaro ADP Committee yabaye umuburanyi mu Rukiko Rukuru, nyuma yuko uru Rukiko rufashe icyemezo cyo kuyihatira kugoboka. Dosiye igaragaza na none ko Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César yajuririye iki cyemezo cyo guhatira kugoboka Kisaro ADP Committee mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, uru Rukiko mu rubanza RSOCAA0002/12/CS rwaciwe ku wa 15/01/2016, rwemeza ko ubujurire bwa Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César nta shingiro bufite, ko urubanza RSOCA0004/13/HC/KIG rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rwa Kigali kuwa 10/03/2014 rudahidutse, bivuze ko Kisaro ADP Committee yakomeje kuba umuburanyi, bikaba ariko byanakomeje mu rubanza RSOCAA0002/12/CS rwaciwe kuwa 10/07/2015, rwaje gukosorwa numero yarwo igahinduka RSOCAA0002/14/CS ari narwo rwasabiwe gusubirishwamo ingingo nshya. [16] Dosiye igaragaza na none ko mu manza zabanje haregwaga Kisaro ADP Committee, ihagarariwe na Perezida wayo. Iyi Komite ikaba yari igizwe n’abantu 12 nk’uko bigaragara mu nyandiko yo ku wa 29/11/2010, yiswe ADP Committee election report, Habarurema Phocas atorerwa, umwanya wa Perezida wayo, akaba ari nawe uyihagararira mu manza. 9 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 35

[17] Urukiko rurasanga kuba, nk’uko byavuzwe mu iburanisha ryo kuwa 20/02/2018, Kisaro ADP Committee yaba itakiriho, kubera ko yahagaritse ibikorwa byayo, iyo itaba impamvu yo kuyivana mu rubanza nk’uko Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César ashaka kubyumvikanisha kuko n’ubundi nta buzima gatozi yigeze igira ngo habe hakurikizwa amategeko ajyanye n’iseswa ry’imiryango cyangwa ibigo bifite ubuzima gatozi, ahubwo Kisaro ADP Committee ari izina abanyamuryango ubwabo bishakiye kugira ngo ariryo bakoresha, bivuze ko n’ibikorwa yitirirwa, ari ibikorwa rw’abanyamuryango, akaba ari nabo bari mu bufatanye mu bagombwa ishingano (solidarité), bityo Kisaro ADP Committee ikaba igomba kuguma mu rubanza, kuko kuba yaba itagikora bidakuraho gukurikirana cyangwa gukurikiranwa ku byabaye ikiriho. Urukiko rurasanga na none kuba inyandiko y’ihamagara ryarasinywe n'uwahoze ari umuyobozi wayo nta kibazo bikwiye gutera kubera ko n'ubusanzwe ariwe wayisinyagaho, kandi akaba ari ikibazo (ikirego) kimwe kigikomeza, bityo ibintu bikaba bigomba gukomeza nk’uko byari bimeze mu manza zabanje, kuko bitabaye ibyo byaba binyuranyije n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 2 y’itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryibukijwe haruguru, iteganya ko ibigo bidafite ubuzima gatozi bishobora kuregwa, kandi ibi umushingamategeko akaba yarabiteganyije agamije kurengera inyungu z’abatari abanyamuryango, ikigo gishobora kuba gifitiye inshingano runaka cyaryozwa. [18] Hashingiwe ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga inzititi ijyanye n’iyitaba ry’ababuranyi, isaba ko Kisaro ADP Committee yavanwa mu rubanza kuko itakiriho, nta shingiro ifite.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 10

## Page 36

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [19] Rwemeje ko inzitizi yatanzwe na Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César nta shingiro ifite. [20] Rwemeje ko urubanza ruzaburanishwa mu mizi ku wa 08/05/2018. [21] Ruvuze ko amagarama y’urubanza abaye asubitswe.

11 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 38

MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RS/INJUST/RC00023/2017/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukandamage na Karimunda, J.) 12 Mutarama 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano – Inzitizi – Ibisabwa ngo ikirego cyakiriwe – Inyungu yo gutanga ikirego – Inyungu igomba kuba iriho igihe ikirego gitangwa, ntibyemewe ko umuntu aregera inyungu ishobora kuzabaho mu gihe kizaza – Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo yi 142. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo aho Ntakirutimana mu izina ry’abana be Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré yareze Musasangohe asaba ko urwo Rukiko rwamutegeka kubandika ku mutungo asangiye na Ntigurirwa wari umugabo we wa mbere w’isezerano banabyaranye mwana witwa Mbatezimana Pautin. Urukiko rwemeje ko abana bahagarariwe na Ntakirutimana bandikwa ku mitungo ya nyina Musasangohe, kandi ko bayifiteho uburenganzira bungana na 25% naho Mbatezimana Pautin yabyaranye n’umugabo we wa mbere akaba ayififiteho 75% mu gihe cy’izungura; runemeza ko nta ndishyi zatangwa muri uru rubanza kuko byaba ari ugusesagura umutungo ugomba kurera abana. Ababuranyi bombi bajuririye urukiko rwisumbuye aho Ntakirutimana yavugaga ko Urukiko rwaciye urubanza 13

## Page 39

kukitaregewe ndetse ntirwanagena indishyi yari yasabye kuko byaba ari ugusesagura umutungo w’umuryango mu gihe batasezeranye nkuko Musasangohe abivuga. Kurundi ruhande, Musasangohe avuga ko abana yabyaranye na Ntakirutimana batagombye kwandikwa ku mutungo yashakanye n’umugabo w’isezerano kuko yabashakiye iyabo afatanyije na Ntakirutimana bityo ko imitungo iburanwa ikwiye guharirwa we na Mbatezimana yabyaranye n’umugabo w’isezerano. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo ntashingiro bufite bityo ko urubanza rwaciwe n’urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo rudahindutse. Nyuma yaho urwo rubanza ruciriwe Musasangohe yiyambaje Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, maze narwo rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwasubirwamo kuko rubonamo akarengane gashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko rwirengagije Itegeko Nº43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda n’Iteka rya Minisitiri No002/2008 ryo kuwa 01/04/2008 rigenga iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka, maze Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ategeka ko urwo rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa . Mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga, Musasangohe yatanze impamvu ndemyagihugu zigaragaza ko ikirego cya Ntakirutimana kitagombaga kwakirwa n’inkiko zabanje kuko nta nyungu yemewe n’amategeko abana ahagarariye bari bafite yo kuregera urukiko, kubera ko umutungo basaba kwandikwaho atari uwe ku giti cye, ahubwo awufatanyije na Ntigurirwa, umugabo we w’isezerano, ko kandi adakwiye kubuzwa uburenganzira ku mutungo we bitewe nuko izungura rizaba atakiriho. Ntakirutimana avuga ko yatanze ikirego mu izina ry’abana be kuko umutungo uburanwa wanditswe kuri Musasangohe n’umwana we Mbatezimana wenyine, akaba yarifuzaga ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 14

## Page 40

n’abandi bana bawandikwaho kugirango bazagire uburenganzira bungana ku mutungo wa nyina. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Inyungu igomba kuba iriho igihe ikirego gitangwa, ntibyemewe ko umuntu aregera inyungu ishobora kuzabaho mu gihe kizaza bityo rero ikirego cya Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré nticyagombaga kwakira n’inkiko zabanje kuko nta nyungu iriho kandi y’aka kanya bafite yo kwandikwa ku mutungo wa nyina Musasangohe, kuko igihe cyo guhabwa iminani cyangwa cyo kumuzungura kitaragera, akaba azazungurwa igihe kigeze kandi hakurikijwe amategeko agenga izungura. 2. Mu gihe ntacyigaragaza ko umugore n’umugabo baburana bafatanyije umutungo ntakibuza ko uwatsindiye indishyi azihabwa igihe ari ngombwa cyane cyane ko batasezeranye mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko. Ikirego cyo gisubirishamo urubanza ku impamvu z’akarengane gifite ishingiro. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku isandu ya Leta. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, ingingo yi 142. Nta manza zashingiweho. 15 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 41

Ibitekerezo by’abahanga: Hakim Boularbah, Olivier Caprasse, Georges De Leval, Frédéric Georges, Pierre Moreau, Dominique Mougenot, Jacques Van Compernolle et Jean-François Van Drooghenbroeck, Droit judiciaire, Tome 2, Manuel de procédure civile, Editions Larcier, 2015, p 91-92. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ntakirutimana Ezira, mu izina ry’abana be Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré, yareze Musasangohe Vestine, nyina w’abo bana, mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo asaba ko urwo rukiko rumutegeka kubandika ku mutungo asangiye na Ntigurirwa Cyprien wari umugabo we wa mbere w’isezerano, babyaranye undi mwana witwa Mbatezimana Pautin. Kuwa 14/06/2013 urwo rukiko rwaciye urubanza RC0051/13/TB/NYB, rwemeza ko abana Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré bandikwa ku mutungo wa nyina ugizwe n’amazu yubatse mu kibanza Nº1342 mu Mudugudu w’Ingezi, ari mu kibanza No59 mu Mudugudu wa Nkundumurimo, umurima ufite Nº2118 mu Mudugudu wa Kamenge n’ishyamba riri mu kibanza No 2172 mu Mudugudu wa Kamenge, ko kandi bafite uburenganzira bungana na 25% kimwe n’umwana we witwa Mbatezimana Pautin yabyaranye n’umugabo we w’isezerano uwufiteho uburenganzira bungana na 75% mu gihe cy’izungura, ugakomeza gucungwa na nyina, runategeka ko nta ndishyi n’amafaranga y’igihembo cy’Avoka ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 16

## Page 42

bigomba gutangwa kuko byaba ari ugusesagura umutungo ugomba kurera abana. [2] Musasangohe Vestine na Ntakirutimana Ezira bajuririye Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Ntakirutimana Ezira avuga ko urukiko rwagiye ruvuga uruhare rwa buri mwana ku mitungo yanditse kuri Musasangohe Vestine, rugena ijanisha (pourcentage) nyamara ibyo bitari mu byo baregeye, ko kandi nta ndishyi zatanzwe hashingiwe ko byaba ari uguhombya umuryango, nyamara Musasangohe avuga ko Ntakirutimana Ezira atari umugabo w’isezerano, naho ku ruhande rwa Musasangohe Vestine ajurira avuga ko abo bana yabyaranye na Ntakirutimana Ezira batagombye kwandikwa ku mutungo w’umugabo w’isezerano kubera ko yabashakiye imitungo yabo afatanyije na Ntakirutimana Ezira, ko kandi umugabo we ashobora guhunguka umwanya uwo ariwo wose, kuko yaburiye muri Kongo, ko imitungo iburanwa yagombye guharirwa we n’umwana witwa Mbatezimana Pautin yabyaranye na Ntigurirwa Cyprien. [3] Kuwa 13/12/2013, Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE, rusanga ubujurire bwa Ntakirutimana Ezira nta shingiro bufite kuko ibyo yasabaga ko abana yabyaranye na Musasangohe Vestine bakwandikwa ku mitungo ya nyina yabihawe, kandi hagenwa n’uruhare bwa buri mwana ku mutungo, ko kandi indishyi yasabye zitari ngombwa kubera ko zari buve mu mutungo asaba ko abana be bandikwaho. Ku bujurire bwa Musasangohe Vestine, Urukiko rwasanze adahakana ko abana ari abe, bakaba rero bafite uburenganzira ku mutungo wa nyina nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 326 y’Igitabo cya mbere cy’urwunge rw’amategeko 17 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 43

y‘imbonezamubano (CCLI) yakoreshwaga icyo gihe, ko kandi urukiko rwabanje nta zungura rwategetse, maze rwemeza ko ubujurire bwabo bombi nta shingiro bufite, rutegeka ko urubanza RC0005/13/TB/NYB rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo rudahindutse. [4] Nyuma y’urwo rubanza, Musasangohe Vestine yiyambaje Urwego rw’Umuvunyi, kuwa 31/08/2015 rwandikira Perezida w’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rusaba ko urubanza RCA 0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwasubirwamo kuko rubonamo akarengane gashingiye ku mpamvu y’uko rwirengagije Itegeko Nº43/2013 ryo kuwa 16/06/2013 rigenga ubutaka mu Rwanda n’Iteka rya Minisitiri No002/2008 ryo kuwa 01/04/2008 rigenga iyandikishwa ry’ubutaka, maze Perezida w‘Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ategeka ko urwo rubanza rwongera kuburanishwa. [5] Iburanisha ry’urubanza mu ruhame ryabaye kuwa 11/12/2017, Musasangohe Vestine ahagarariwe na Me Amani Jean de Dieu, naho Ntakirutimana Ezira, mw’izina ry’abana be Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré, ahagarariwe na Me Bundogo Innocent. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO a. Kumenya niba Ntakirutimana Ezira, mu izina ry’abana be, yari afite inyungu yo kurega asaba ko bandikwa ku mutungo Musasangohe Vestine yashakanye na Ntigurirwa Cyprien. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 18

## Page 44

[6] Me Amani Jean de Dieu, uburanira Musasangohe Vestine, avuga ko ashingiye kubiteganywa n’ingingo ya 142 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi, asanga hari impamvu ndemyagihugu ituma ikirego cyatanzwe na Ntakirutimana Ezira kitaragombaga kwakirwa n’inkiko zabanje, kubera ko nta nyungu yemewe n’amategeko abana bareze abahagarariye bari bafite yo kuregera urukiko, kubera ko umutungo basaba kwandikwaho atari uwa nyina ku giti cye, ahubwo awufatanyije na Ntigurirwa Cyprien, umugabo we w’isezerano, ko kandi Musasangohe Vestine adakwiye kubuzwa uburenganzira ku mutungo we bitewe n’izungura rizaba atakiriho, cyane cyane ko abazungura be bareze bahagarariwe na se, nta cyemeza ko aribo bazungura be bonyine, kuko ashobora no kubyara abandi bana. [7] Me Bundogo Innocent, uhagarariye Ntakirutimana Ezira, avuga ko yatanze ikirego mu izina ry’abana yabyaranye na Musasangohe Vestine kubera ko umutungo we wari wanditsweho gusa umwana we umwe witwa Mbatezimana Pautin, akaba rero yarifuzaga ko n’abandi bawandikwaho kugira ngo bazagire uburenganzira ku mutungo wa nyina, ko ariko mu nama ntegurarubanza Musasangohe Vestine yavuze ko umutungo baregera umwanditseho 100%, bituma bashakisha amakuru, Ikigo gishinzwe imicungire n’imikoreshereze y’ubutaka mu Rwanda/Urwego rw’umubitsi w’impapurompamo z’ubutaka, kibagaragariza, mu ibaruwa yo kuwa 22/01/2017, ko umutungo wanditse kuri Musasangohe Vestine wenyine, ko rero kuba Mbatezimana Pautin atawanditseho, nta mpamvu y’uko n’abandi bana be bawandikwaho, bityo n‘urubanza rwasabiwe gusubirishwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rukaba rukwiye kuvaho. 19 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 45

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [8] Ku byerekeye inzitizi zisaba kutakira ikirego, ingingo ya 142 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko “impamvu ituma ikirego kitakirwa ishobora kubyutswa n’umuburanyi cyangwa n’Urukiko rubyibwirije. Impamvu zituma ikirego kitakirwa zigaragazwa n’urukiko rubyibwirije iyo ari indemyagihugu, nko kurenza igihe cyo kujurira cyangwa kutagira ububasha, ubushobozi cyangwa inyungu byo kurega”. [9] Ku byerekeye inyungu yo kurega ivugwa muri iyo ngingo, abahanga mu mategeko bavuga ko igomba kuba iriho igihe ikirego gitangwa, ko bitemewe ko umuntu aregera inyungu ishobora kuzabaho mu gihe kizaza1. [10] Bigaragara mu myanzuro itanga ikirego mu Rukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo ku wa 23/01/2013, ko Ntakirutimana Ezira, mu izina ry’abana be Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana

1 “l’intérêt doit être né et actuel. C’est à dire qu’au jour où il exerce son action, le demandeur doit pouvoir tirer un avantage de la prétention qu’il a émise, dans le cas où elle serait déclarée bien fondée. Un intérêt éventuel ne suffit donc pas pour qu’une action soit recevable. En principe l’action ad futurum n’est pas autorisée, ce qui pose la question de la recevabilité des actions préventives et singulièrement des actions à portée probatoire ou déclaratoire, cette dernière étant destinée à faire constater l’existance ou l’inexistence d’un droit en dehors d’une constatation actuelle”. Hakim Boularbah, Olivier Caprasse, Georges De Leval, Frédéric Georges, Pierre Moreau, Dominique Mougenot, Jacques Van Ompernolle et Jean-François Van Drooghenbroeck, Droit judiciaire, Tome 2, Manuel de procédure civile, Editions Larcier, 2015, p 91-92. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 20

## Page 46

Honoré, yareze avuga ko mu gihe cyo kubaruza umutungo, Musasangohe Vestine yafashe umutungo wose awibaruzaho, mu bana be ashyiraho umwana umwe Mbatezimana Pautin abandi bose uko ari bane arabihorera kandi nabo ari abe, akaba yarasabaga urukiko ko rwamutegeka kwandika ku mutungo we abo bana, kuko mu gihe cyo guhabwa iminani cyangwa igihe cyo kuzungura batazagira icyo babona kuko ibintu byose yabyanditse ku muzungura umwe wenyine, ko kandi afite impungenge ko aramutse atakiriho byazakurura imanza zitari ngombwa kugira ngo bazabashe kugira uburenganzira bungana n’ubwa Mbatezimana Pautin. [11] Urukiko rurasanga inyungu Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré bafite ku mutungo wa nyina Musasangohe Vestine atari inyungu iriho kandi y’aka kanya, kuko igihe cyo guhabwa iminani cyangwa cyo kumuzungura kitaragera, akaba azazungurwa igihe kigeze kandi hakurikijwe amategeko agenga izungura, bityo rero ikirego cyabo nticyagombaga kwakira n’inkiko zabanje kuko nta nyungu bagaragaza ubu bafite zo kwandikwa ku mutungo wa nyina. [12] Hashingiwe rero ku biteganya n’ingingo ya 142 y’Itegeko Nº21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, n’ibisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rurasanga urubanza RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Musasangohe Vestine yasabye ko rusubirwamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane rugomba kuvaho, ndetse n’urubanza RC0051/13/TB/NYB rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ibanze rwa Nyamirambo kuko abareze nta nyungu bafite.

21 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 47

b. Ku byerekeye indishyi zisabwa na Musasangohe Vestine [13] Me Amani Jean de Dieu, wunganira Musasangohe Vestine, avuga ko Ntakirutimana Ezira agomba guha uwo yunganira indishyi z’akababaro zingana na 1.500.000Frw kubera ko yamushoye mu manza nta mpamvu, 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000Frw y‘ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego. [14] Me Bundogo Innocent, uhagarariye Ntakirutimana Ezira, avuga ko amafaranga yose asabwa na Musasangohe Vestine adakwiye gutangwa kubera ko uwo ahagarariye yareze mu izina ry’abana be, akaba ari we ubarera, ko rero amafaranga yacibwa yava mu mutungo bashakanye. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [15] Urukiko rurasanga nta kigaragaza ko imitungo ya Ntakirutimana Ezira ayifatanyije na Musasangohe Vestine, cyane cyane ko batasezeranye mu buryo bwemewe n’amategeko, hakaba rero nta cyatuma atamuha indishyi asaba mu gihe byaba ari ngombwa ko azitanga. [16] Ku byerekeye 1.500.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro Musasangohe Vestine asaba Ntakirutimana Ezira, Urukiko rurasanga koko yaramushoye mu rubanza bitari ngombwa, ariko ayo mafaranga asaba akaba ari ikirenga, bityo mu bushishozi bwarwo akaba agenewe angana na 500.000Frw. [17] Naho 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza kuri uru rwego Musasangohe Vestine asaba Ntakirutimana Ezira, Urukiko rurasanga koko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 22

## Page 48

yarashatse Avoka wo kuburana urubanza kandi ararukurikirana, ariko ntagaragaza ko ayo mafaranga ari yo yakoresheje koko kuri uru rubanza, bityo mu bushishozi akaba agenewe 500.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka na 200.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza, yose hamwe akaba 700.000Frw kuri uru rwego. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [18] Rwemeje ko ikirego cyatanzwe na Musasangohe Vestine cyo gusubirishamo ku mpamvu z’akarengane urubanza RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe kuwa 13/12/2013 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, gifite ishingiro; [19] Rwemeje ko urubanza RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE – RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe kuwa 13/12/2013 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, ruvanyweho; [20] Rutegetse Ntakirutimana Ezira, mw’izina ry’abana be Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves na Ntakirutimana Honoré kwishyura Musasangohe Vestine 500.000Frw y’indishyi z’akababaro na 700.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru; [21] Rutegetse ko amafaranga y’amagarama y’urubanza aherera ku Isanduku ya Leta.

23 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 50

IMANZA ZACIWE MU MIZI

## Page 52

IMANZA MBONEZAMUBANO

## Page 54

TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RCA00321/2016/HC/KIG RCA00320/2016/HC/KIG RCA00322/2016/HC/KIG RCA00336/2016/HC/KIG (Kabagambe, P.J.) 29 Nzeri 2017] Indishyi – Igenwa ry’ indishyi zikomoka ku ikosa – Usaba indishyi kubera ibyo yangirijwe agomba kugaragaza ikosa yakorewe, ibyo yangirijwe, n’isano hagati y’ikosa n’ibyo yangirijwe. Uburyozwe – Uburyozwe bukomoka ku ibicuruzwa – Ubucuruzi bw’imiti – umucuruzi w’imiti aryozwa ingaruka mbi zatewe n’umuti utujuje ubuziranenge yagurishije – Itegeko teka ryo kuwa 30/07/1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 259 niya 260. Incamake y’ikibazo: Nyuma yaho Tukakira, Mutesi, Bayitake na Rubagumya bivurije kuri HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD bakabatera umuti wa ndlr lidocaine 2% ukabagiraho ingaruka mbi bareze ibyo bitaro mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge basaba gusubizwa amafaranga batanze bivuza uburwayi batewe nuwo muti, amatike bakoresheje bagiye kwivuza; guhabwa indishyi z’ububabare bagize bakimara guterwa umuti, iz’akababaro; iz’ikurikirana rubanza no gushorwa mu nkiko. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD yahamagaje mu rubanza SONARWA G.I.CO. Ltd nk’umwishingizi wayo ndetse na ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd nkiyayigurishije umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% watewe abarega; Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwemeje ko ikirego cyabo gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe ko kandi umuti ndlr 29

## Page 55

lidocaine 2% batewe wabagizeho ingaruka mbi ariko ko nta kosa ry’ubuganga ryakozwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ikoresha uwo muti bityo rero ko idakwiye kuryozwa indishyi zisabwa n’abaregwa ndetse ko SONARWA G.I.CO. Ltd nta nshingano ifite yo gutanga indishyi muri uru rubanza maze rutegeka ko ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd ariyo ifite inshingano yo kuryozwa indishyi zose zisabwa muri uru rubanza kuko ariyo yagurishije umuti watewe abarega ukabagiraho ingaruka mbi. Abarega bose kimwe na ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd ntibishimiye imikirize y’urubanza bajuririra Urukiko Rukuru bavuga ko batemera uko indishyi zatanzwe n’uburyo zabazwe. Mu Rukiko Rukuru hasuzumwe niba hari isano hagati yo guterwa lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 n’ingaruka mbi abayitewe bagize hamwe no kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa zigomba gutangwa. ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd yiregura ivuga ko Urukiko rubanza rwashingiye ku kuba harakoreshejwe ndlr lidocaine 2% itujuje ubuziranenge nyamara rwirengagiza ko niyo byaba aribyo koko hagomba kugaragazwa isano yaba iri hagati yo guterwa uwo muti uvugwa n’ingaruka mbi abayitewe bagize, ikomeza ivuga ko yagaragarije urukiko ibimenyetso byinshi byerekana ko harimo ugushidikanya kunini mu kwemeza ko ibibazo abareze bagize baba barabitewe na lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 bateweho ikinya. Tukakira, Mutesi, Bayitake na Rubagumya bavuga ko Urukiko rutirengangije isano riri hagati y’uwacuruje umuti n’uwo wagizeho ingaruka kandi ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd igomba kwishingira ko ibicuruzwa byayo bifite ubuziranenge. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ivuga ko abarega mu rwego rwa mbere bose bagize ikibazo bakimara kuvurwa, ibyo rero bigaragaza isano iri hagati n’umuti batewe kandi hari n’ibindi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 30

## Page 56

bimenyetso bigaragaza ko uwo muti batewe utujuje ubuziranenge bigizwe na raporo zitandukanye zakozwe laboratoire zinyuranye bityo rero ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd niyo igomba kuryozwa ingaruka mbi zatewe nuwo muti. Minisiteri y’ubuzima yabajijwe uko bigenda mu gihe umucuruzi wahawe uruhushya rwo gutumiza imiti azanye umuti utujuje ubuziranenge ivuga ko ariwe wirengera ingaruka zose zaterwa nuwo muti. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Usaba indishyi kubera ibyo yangirijwe agomba kugaragaza ikosa yakorewe, ibyo yangirijwe, n’isano hagati y’ikosa n’ibyo yangirijwe. Hashingiwe kwisuzuma ryakozwe n’abahanga batandukanye umuti wa ndlr lidocaine 2% ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd yagurishije HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD utari wujuje ubuziranenge ndetse akaba ariwo wateje ubumuga abarega, bityo rero ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd igomba kuryozwa ingaruka zatewe n’uwo muti. 2. Indishyi z’ububabare bwatewe n’uwo muti zigenwe mu bushishozi bw’urukiko kuko nta mategeko ariho ateganya ingano yazo n’uko zabarwa. 3. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ntiyaryozwa indishyi zogutererana abarega kuko nta kosa ry’ubuvuzi yakoze ahubwo amakosa yakozwe na ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd kuko ariyo yagurishije umuti utujuje ubuziranenge. 4. Igihe ubujurire nta shingiro bufite indishyi zikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’avoka ntizitangwa n’urukiko. Ubujurire nta shingiro bufite. Amagarama y’urubanza yatazwe n’abajuriye ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza. 31 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 57

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°15/2004 ryo kuwa 12/06/2004 ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo, ingingo ya 3 niya 9. Itegeko teka ryo kuwa 30/07/1888, rigenga amasezerano cyangwa imirimo nshinganwa, ingingo ya 258, 259 niya 260. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge, Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent barega HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, basaba gusubizwa amafaranga batanze bivuza uburwayi, ibikomere n’ibisebe batewe n’ibitaro no gusubizwa amatike bakoresheje bagiye kwivuza, kuri Tukakira Rugigana Deus 9.607.047Frw, Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 230.025Frw, Mutesi Scola 383.212Frw, Bayitake Angelique 375.879Frw; guhabwa indishyi z’ububabare bagize bakimara guterwa umuti, ndetse bakagira ibisebe n’ibikomere n’uburwayi bwuririyeho bitewe n’umuti ibitaro byabateye (Anaesthesia), kuri Tukakira Rugigana Deus 200.000.000Frw, kuri Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 100.000.000Frw, Mutesi Scola 150.000.000Frw, Bayitake Angelique 150.000.000Frw; basaba kandi indishyi z’akababaro, kuri Tukakira Rugigana Deus 100.000.000Frw, Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 50.000.000Frw, Mutesi Scola 50.000.000Frw, Bayitake Angelique 50.000.000Frw; indishyi z’ikurikirana rubanza no gushorwa mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 32

## Page 58

nkiko, kuri Tukakira Rugigana Deus 3000.000Frw, Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 1000.000Frw, Mutesi Scola 1000.000Frw, Bayitake Angelique 1000.000Frw; gusubizwa amafaranga babuze (financial loss), kuri Tukakira Rugigana Deus 2.992.428Frw, kuri Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 160.000Frw. [2] Urubanza rwagobokeshejwemo SONARWA G.I.CO. Ltd nk’umwishingizi wa HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD na ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd nk’iyagurishije HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD umuti ndlr lidocaine 2%; bisabwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD [3] Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rwemeje ko ikirego cya Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent gifite ishingiro kuri bimwe, rwemeje ko umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% watewe Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent ariwo wabateye ingaruka mbi bagize, ko nta kosa ry’ubuvuzi HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD yakoze ikoresha umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% ku barega, ko HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD idakwiye kuryozwa indishyi zisabwa n’abarega; rwemeje ko SONARWA G.I.CO.Ltd nta nshingano ifite yo gutanga indishyi muri uru rubanza; rutegeka ko ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd igomba kuryozwa indishyi zikomoka ku muti ndlr lidocaine 2% watewe Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, rutegeka ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd guha Tukakira Rugigana Deus indishyi zose hamwe n’igihembo cy’avoka zingana na 21.184.153Frw; guha Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 3.158.106Frw, guha Mutesi Scola 4.251.641Frw no guha Bayitake Angelique 4.224.908Frw; rutegeka ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd gusubiza HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD 33 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 59

4.883.604Frw, rwemeje ko ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd nta ndishyi ikwiye; rutegeka ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd gusubiza Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, buri wese 50.000Frw y’amagarama. [4] ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd kimwe na Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique ntibishimiye iyo mikirize y’urubanza, barujuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru, bavuga ko batemera uko indishyi zatanzwe n’ uburyo zabazwe. IBIBAZO BIGOMBA GUSUZUMWA MURI URU RUBANZA. -Kumenya niba hari isano (lien de causalité) yaba iri hagati yo guterwa lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 n'ingaruka mbi abayitewe bagize -Gusuzuma indishyi zigomba gutangwa muri uru rubanza. II. ISESENGURA RY’IBIBAZO. Kumenya niba hari isano (lien de causalité) yaba iri hagati yo guterwa lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 n'ingaruka mbi abayitewe bagize. [5] Uhagarariye ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd avuga ko Urukiko rwashingiye ku kuba hakoreshejwe lidocaine 2% yaba itujuje ubuziranenge, nyamara rwirengagiza ko niyo byaba ari byo koko (lidocaine 2% itujuje ubuziranenge) hagomba kugaragazwa isano (lien de causalité entre le dommage (préjudice) subi et la faute invoquée.) nk’uko rwari ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 34

## Page 60

rwabigaragarijwe mu gihe cy’iburanisha ariko ntirubihe agaciro kandi binyuranije n’amahame y’ingenzi agenderwaho muri rusange nk’uko abahanga1 (doctrine) babyemeza, kandi byaribukijwe urukiko mu gihe cy’iburanisha. [6] Uhagarariye ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd avuga ko mu isesengura ry’iyi ngingo kandi, urukiko rwirengagije nta mpamvu rugaragaje ibimenyetso byinshi byerekana ko harimo gushidikanya kunini mu kwemeza ko ibibazo abareze bagize baba barabitewe na lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 batewe nk’ ikinya, kuko muri dosiye y’urukiko rubanza, hariho urutonde rwakozwe na ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd rugaragaza aho umuti wagurishizwe mu gihugu cyose, kandi urukiko rwarabimenyeshejwe, ariko mu mwanzuro warwo ntirwabiha agaciro nk’uko rwabyanzuye ruvuga ko : ‟ …Kuba Me Viateur Mutanguha uburanira ABACUS avuga ko uwo muti wagurishijwe andi mavuliro n’ibitaro ntihagira ingaruka bitera, Urukiko rusanga nta shingiro byahabwa kuko atagaragariza urukiko aho uwo muti wakoreshejwe n’umuntu watewe uretse kubivuga gusa”. Aha rero basanga habayeho kwirengagiza nkana ibimenyetso urukiko rwari rwashyikirijwe kandi hari hagamijwe

1https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsabilit%C3%A9_du_fait_des_produits_ de_sant%C3%A9_d%C3%A9fectueux :« afin d’engager la responsabilité du fait d’un produit défectueux, la victime doit prouver la défectuosité du produit, le dommage subi ainsi que le lien de causalité entre la défectuosité du produit et la survenance du dommage. En effet, ce lien de causalité doit être certain…. La preuve du lien de causalité…admet la possibilité de recourir à des présomptions graves, précises et concordantes. Ces présomptions ne seront admises que si trois conditions sont réunies. En premier lieu, le fait doit pouvoir être matériellement une cause génératrice du dommage à l’égard des données acquises de la science. Egalement, il doit être hautement probable que le facteur ait été à l’origine du dommage. Enfin toutes les autres causes de possibles du dommage doivent avoir été exclues »

35 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 61

kwerekana ko hagombye kubaho gushidikanya mu kwemeza ko umuti lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 wateye ikibazo gusa ku bantu bane bivurije mu bitaro bimwe ( Hopital la Croix du Sud) ahatanzwe 100 fl mu gihe hagurishijwe mu gihugu cyose 4282 fl de 30ml. [7] Ko nyuma y’uko ikibazo cyavugwaga muri Hopital la Croix du Sud kimenyekaniye, ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd, mu rwego rwo gukumira (prévention), yasabye ko ibigo, ibitaro n’Amavuriro byose byaguze umuti lidocaine 2% batch 4032 biwugarura, ariko Hopital ya Gitwe niyo yonyine yagaruye 50 fl kuri 69 fl yari yatwaye kandi nta kibazo yigeze ivuga ku barwayi bari barakoreshejweho 19 fl, zindi zigaragara kuri raporo yabyo. Kandi Hopital la Croix du Sud ubwayo yaguze 100 fl za lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032, nyamara ikibazo kimaze kuvugwa kuri uwo muti, nayo yasabwe kugarura flacons zari zisigaye zitakoreshwa ariko ntiyigeze ibikora ku buryo habaho kwibaza niba izindi zose zitaba zarakoreshejwe ariko ntizigire ingaruka mbi zitera. Kubera izo mpamvu zose rero, hashingiwe ku mahame (principes juridiques : « les mêmes causes produisent les mêmes effets - Eandem causam producunt effectus », « Cum hoc ergo prompter hoc- Même cause, même effet »), habaho gushidikanya gukomeye mu kwemeza ko umuti lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 wateye ingaruka mbi ku barwayi bane gusa ku bantu 8564 waba warakoreshejweho. [8] Abahagarariye Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent bavuga ko Urukiko ntirwirengagije isano iri hagati y'uwacuruje umuti n’uwo wagizeho ingaruka (causal link). Nukuvuga ko ABACUS PHARMA LTD igomba gutanga garantie ko ibicuruzwa byayo bifite ubuziranenge kandi ko uwabikoresha wese bitamugiraho ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 36

## Page 62

ingaruka. Ubikoresha uwo ariwe wese bikamugiraho ingaruka, ABACUS PHARMA LTD igomba kwirengera izo ngaruka. Bityo basanga urukiko ntirwibeshye mu gihe rwafataga icyemezo cyo guca indishyi kuko ibisebe n'ibikomere byabarega bagize byakomotse k'umuti batewe wacurujwe na ABACUS PHARMA LTD. [9] Abahagarariye Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent bavuga kandi ko ABACUS PHARMA LTD ubwayo yemera ko ariyo yacuruje umuti wateye ikibazo ndetse nyuma yo kumenyeshwa ko umuti yacuruje wateje ikibazo, yihutiye kuwuhamagaza ngo udakomeza gukwirakwizwa ku barwayi benshi; kandi yemera ko ariyo yacuruje lidocaine 2% igakoreshwa kubarwayi nkikinya igatera ingaruka bagaragaje mu mafoto n'impapuro za muganga bigaragaza ko ariyo nyirabayazana kuko yacuruze umuti udafite ubuziranenge. [10] Abahagarariye Hopital la Croix du Sud bavuga ko kuvuga ko icyemezo cy’urukiko kitagaragaza isano (lien de causalite) yaba iri hagati yo guterwa lidocaine 2% BATCH CM 40 32 n’ingaruka mbi bagize mukwiregura kwiyi ngingo, Hopital La Croix Du Sud irasanga ABACUS itarigeze izana inzobere mu byerekeye imiti kugirango avuguruze raporo yatanzwe na laboratoire yo mu Rwanda ndetse niyo hanze kugirango bibaye ngombwa abazwe n’urukiko cyangwa ababuranyi. Ikindi kubyerekeye isano biragaragara ku rupapuro rwa mbere ya kopi y’urubanza mu gace kambere aho abarega bo mu rwego rwambere bose bavuga ko nyuma mu gihe gito bamaze kuvurwa bahitaga bagira ikibazo bikagaragaza isano n’umuti batewe. Ikindi n’ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko umuti wikinya utujuje ubuziranenge bikemezwa na ma raporo atandukanye: 1)Raporo 37 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 63

ya mbere yo kuwa 15/04/2015 ya laboratoire ya Kaminuza y’u Rwanda, iyi rapport isoza igaragaza ko muri physical chemico test ku ngingo ya gatatu yitwa Assay umuti ufite 94.1 kandi ugomba kuba hagati 95.0% -105.0 % noneho laboratoire ikanzura ivuga ko umuti utujuje ibisabwa; 2) Raporo ya kabiri niya SGS ya Laboratoire waver yo mu Bubiligi yo kuwa 19/08/2015, iyi laboratoire ikaba yemewe na OMS (organization mondial de la santé) ibi kandi bikaba binashimangirwa na raporo y’uruganda LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICALS rwakoze uwo muti Lidocaine injection 2% aho bigaragara ko BATCH CM 40 32 bagurishije ABACUS PHARMA ushobora gutera ingaruka zitifuzwa zirimo: allergies na necrosis. Ko mu gihe bigaragara ko n’uruganda rwagurishije uwo muti uvuga ko ufite ikibazo, ABACUS ikabyirengagiza ikagura uwo muti, aho harimo ikibazo nibo bagomba kubiryozwa. Ibi rero basanga ari ibimenyetso bikomeye bisobanutse kandi bihuje bikemeza ko uwo muti wari ufite ikibazo ikaba arinayo sano hagati y’ibikomere n’umuti wateye iki kibazo kubatanze ikirego kurwego rwambere, iyi raporo ikaba igaragaza ko umuti ufite 94.5% kandi wagombaga kuba hagati ya 95.0% na 105.0%, bagasoza bavuga ko umuti uri « fail »! [11] Urukiko rwatumije mu rubanza umuhanga mu by’imiti wo muri minisiteri y’ubuzima, hitabye uwitwa Semana Edmond, hamwe n’umunyamategeko wo muri iyo ministeri; hatumijwe kandi umuyobozi wa HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, nawe yitabye hamwe n’ushinzwe laboratoire muri ibyo bitaro witwa Kwizera Gad, bose bakaba baratumijwe mu rubanza kugira ngo batange amakuru ku bijyanye n’umuti wa Lidocaine injection 2% uburanwa muri uru rubanza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 38

## Page 64

[12] Semana Edmond yasobanuriye urukiko ko abemerewe kwinjiza imiti mu Rwanda ni depot pharmaceutique n’ibigo by’ubuzima, bakagira ibyangombwa byaho bakura imiti bigaragaza ko imiti yujuje ibisabwa kandi bakagaragaza ko ukora imiti (fournisseur) yujuje ibyangombwa byo gukora imiti; ko hari lisiti y’imiti yemewe kwinjira mu gihugu, kandi iyo umuti ugeze mu gihugu uwayizanye yemerewe kuwutanga kuri pharamacie detaillant, ibigo by’ubuzima, kandi iyo umuti ugeze muri depot z’ibyo bigo, abaganga bashobora kuwandikira abarwayi. Ikindi abo imiti ica mu ntoki bagomba gukomeza kuwubungabunga kugira ngo utazapfa, ukabikwa neza kuri temperature yemewe, kandi bagomba kugumana inyandiko zerekana aho umuti wavuye kugira ngo ni ugira ikibazo bamenye aho umuti wavuye. Kubijyanye na procedure de rappel asobanura ko iyo umuti ugize ikibazo bakawutangaho amakuru uhita uhagarikwa gutangwa hakarebwa aho wavuye, uwawutumije, bakamubaza aho yawutanze hose naho wagize ingaruka ni impamvu zaba zarabiteye. [13] Semana Edmond akomeza avuga ko kuri lidocaine injection 2% Minisiteri y’ubuzima yamenyeshejwe ikibazo wateye aho byabereye, n’aho waguzwe, maze Minisiteri y’ubuzima yasuye ibitaro byabereyemo bahagarika « Batch number » yari iri mu isoko, n’umuti uhita uhagarikwa. Akomeza avuga ko mu Rwanda hemerwa imiti ya Pharmacopoeia 5: USP (US Pharmacopoeia), BP (British Pharmacopoeia), European Pharmacopoeia, JP (Japanese Pharmacopoeia), Pharmacopoeia international. Ko iyo hagiye kuba isuzuma harebwa cya gitabo wakozwemo, ni ukuvuga niba umuti uri BP isuzuma ryakorwa hakurikijwe igitabo cya British Pharmacopoeia. Ikindi niba basanze umuti ufite ikibazo uvanwa ku isoko burundu, kandi ibyo byose bimenyekana hamaze gukorwa amasuzuma akwiye. 39 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 65

[14] Semana Edmond avuga kandi ko kubijyanye n’ubuziranenge bw’umuti, bivuga ko umuti wujuje ibisabwa cyangwa ukiri mu bipimo biri cyangwa bitari munsi y’uwakoze umuti cyangwa uhuje n’ibitabo ngenga mikorere, ko umuti uzajya munsi cyangwa ukarenga igitabo ngenga mikorere, ubwo umuti uba utujuje ubuziranenga cyangwa se harebwa ibara ry’umuti niba udasa nawo ubwo ntuba wujuje ubuziranenge, ikindi hari ubuziranenge bugaragarira ijisho ni ubutagaragarira ijisho bigaragara hakoreshejwe ibipimo. Ariko ko mu Rwanda nta nganda zihari zo gukora amasuzuma ko umuti wujuje ubuziranenge. Ikindi hagomba kurebwa kandi niba ibikoresho bikoreshwa mu gutanga umuti nabyo byujuje ubuziranenge. [15] Semana Edmond yabajijwe uko bigenda mu gihe umucuruzi wahawe uruhushya na Ministeri y’ubuzima rwo gutumiza umuti azanye umuti utujuje ubuziranenge, asubiza ko ugomba kwirengera ingaruka ni bya byiciro bitandukanye umuti ucamo, ko umuntu wirengera ingaruka bwa mbere ni uwo byabereyeho, kenshi babasaba kubitwika, ubugenzuzi bukorerwa bwa mbere abantu bafite « depot pharamaceutique » bareba certificate na Batch, kuko uruganda rumwe rushobora gutanga imiti ahantu henshi ariko buri wese aba afite batch number ye, maze bareba niba ari pharmacie cyangwa bitaro bigomba kubyirengera. Semana Edmond yabajijwe icyo Minisiteri y’ubuzima ivuga ku muti lidocaine injection 2%, asubiza ko basuye bitaro La croix du sud gusa kuko niho honyine hagize ikibazo, naho batch yose yagiye mu gihugu nta handi havutse ikibazo. Semana Edmond yabajijwe niba nka Ministeri y’ubuzima , igihe basabye ko umuti Lidocaine injection 2% usuzumwa, niba basabye ko expertise ikorwa bakurikije ibyo ibitabo (Pharmacopoeia) bavuga, asubiza ko expertise zasabwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 40

## Page 66

zagombaga gukorwa zikurikije ibitabo byakoshejwe, ko zakozwe hadakurikijwe ibitabo byakoreshejwe. [16] Me Gumisiriza avuga ko Minisiteri y’ubuzima yigeze kwandika isaba ko habaho gusuzuma umuti lidocaine injection 2% wateye ikibazo, ariko bakibaza icyo Minisiteri y’ubuzima yakoze mu gihe babonye ibisubizo bidakurikije ibitabo. [17] Me Mutanguha avuga ko Minisiteri y’ubuzima, ibisabwe na LA CROIX DU SUD, yasabye za laboratoire gukora isuzuma, ko umukozi wa LA CROIX DU SUD niwe wasabaga ko hakoreshwa igitabo cya british Pharmacopoeia, ko kuba batarebye igitabo cyakoreshejwe ni uburangare, naho gukemanga uburyo bwakoreshejwe n’umuhanga baba barengereye niba expertise zakozwe zikoresheje USP (US Pharmacopoeia) kandi umuti warakoresheje igitabo cya BP (British Pharmacopoeia). [18] Me Muhozi Paulin avuga ko hari umukozi wo muri laboratoire wagize uruhare kuri expertise zakozwe n’uwitwa Kwizera Gad, bagasaba ko nawe agire icyo avuga kugira ngo bihuzwe n’ibyavuzwe n’intumwa ya ministeri y’ubuzima. [19] Kwizera Gad, umukozi wo mu bitaro LA CROIX DU SUD, umuhanga mu by’imiti wiga Masters Pharmaceutico, asobanura ko aribo bakoze correspondance, Ministeri y’ubuzima yabategetse gukoresha iryo suzuma, babaha laboratoire bemerewe gukoramo amasuzuma; bakaba baratangiye gusaba gukoresha isuzuma muri Africa : Uganda, Kenya, Afrique du sud, no muri Suisse na France, bababwira ko batari tayari yo gukora isuzuma kandi bose bari bemewe na OMS. Ko nabo ubwabo basaba ko hakorwa izo suzuma bari basabye ko hakurikizwa British Pharmacopoeia kuko ariyo yanditse ku muti, muri correspondance bababwira ko methode ikoreshwa muri British 41 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 67

Pharmacopoeia ntibibujije ko gukora isuzuma wakoresha US Pharmacopoeia. Ko laboratoire y’i Butare n’iyo mu Bubirigi babahaye inama ko bakoresha US Pharmacopoeia. [20] Kwizera Gad akomeza avuga ko abantu bose baterwaga umuti byaterwaga ni uburyo bwakoreshejwe abantu batewe ku uruho (mu buryo buri superficiel) uwo muti wateye ikibazo; kandi higeze kuba undi munti wateye ikibazo waguzwe na CAMERWA, ku buryo hari n’abantu bapfuye. Ko n’ubwo umuti wakorwa ufite ubuziranenge uba ugomba gukomeza gukurikiranwa. Ko umuti Lidocaine injection 2% hari ibitaro baturanye bawuteye umuntu ku jisho akagira ikibazo, bagasanga birakwiye ko Minisiteri y’ubuzima yongera imbaraga muri pharmaco vigilance. Ikindi ko umuti wateye ikibazo hari uducupa 60 babitse mu rwego rwo gukomeza gukora ibizamini, kuko aho umuti waterwaga waratwikaga ugasanga habaye umweru, ikindi umuntu wateraga umuti uwo yayiteye akaribwa cyane agahindura flacon nabwo umuntu amubwira ko akomeje kubabara cyane, kandi abateraga umuti ari abantu babifitiye ubumenyi. [21] Umuyobozi wa HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, Nyirinkwaya Jean Chrysostome, asobanura ko baguze umuti mu kwezi kwa kabili, uterwa abarwayi barababara, babonnye icyo kibazo, bahise babimenyesha Minisiteri y’ubuzima kugira ngo hatavuka ikibazo mu yandi mavuriro. Bakaba baragiye i Butare gusuzumisha uwo muti, bagasanga Lidocaine ifite ikibazo na Lidocaine idafite ikibazo, kandi ko no ku maso ntaho bihuriye, maze Minisiteri y’ubuzima ibasaba kujya kubikoresha ahandi, bajya mu bubirigi, Kenya na Afrique du Sud no mu Bubiligi biza bihuye n’iby’iButare. Ikindi baguze imiti (2 lots) ariko zose ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 42

## Page 68

ntabwo bazikoresheje, bakaba barakoresheje igice kimwe kandi ariyo yari ifite ikibazo. [22] Me Mutanguha avuga ko La Croix du Sud ntiyagaruye ibyo bari baguze byose, kandi Safari aracyakora mu bitaro bya La croix du sud kandi atari yemerewe kuvura umugore we. Ikindi umuforomo wasuzumye Rugigana yatanze amakuru y’uko iyo yihagarikaga yaribwaga ndetse akanishima ku mutwe w’igitsina. [23] Me Muhozi avuga ko Safari yari « chef des urgences », kandi baba bagiye kuvuga amakosa y’ubuvuzi kandi sicyo kibazo kuko ikibazo ni umuti. [24] Dr Nyirinkwaya avuga ko ibyo Me Mutanguha avuga nta sano bifitanye n’ikibazo cy’imiti bavuga. [25] Me Rutagengwa avuga ko uko isuzuma ya Lidocaine ryakozwe i Butare no mu Bubiligi, ntiyumva ukuntu abahanga bari gukoresha uburyo (formule) butaribwo, bagasanga ukuri kurahari ariko Abacus Pharma yanze kugukoraho; ikindi bandikiye uwakoze umuti, bakibaza niba yakwivuguruza akavuga ko yakoze umuti ufite ikibazo. [26] Me Gumisiriza avuga ko nta muntu ukemanga ko SGS idafite ubushobozi bwo kumenya ko umuti udafite ikibazo, ni izindi laboratoire zazanwa bashobora kuvuga ko batazemera mu gihe ABACUS yemeranyije na LA CROIX DU SUD ko umuti bikekwa ko ufite ikibazo; ko ntabwo ABACUS yagombye kuvuga ko ibyakozwe na Laboratoire y’uwakoze umuti ko aribyo by’ukuri, kuko akora ibishoboka kugira ngo umuti uhuzwe ni ibisabwa. Ikindi kuvuga ko nta bimenyetso ko ikibazo cyaturutse ku muti, basanga ataribyo kuko umuganga yateye umuti umurwayi, uwo avuga ko ababara aho kuvuga ko atumva 43 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 69

ububabare, bagasanga ikibazo gikomeye gikwiye kuryozwa umuti utungwa agatoki wakomotse kuwa wucuruje, n’ububabare bwatewe ni umuti. Ikindi ari uko uwo muti ubu warengeje igihe, utagishobora gupimwa (expired) ntiwasubira muri laboratoire. [27] Me Mutanguha avuga ko umuti Lidocaine BP 2% ABACUS PHARMA yemeza ko wujuje ubuziranenge, kuba hari ahantu bavuga ko bagize ikibazo bagitewe n’uriya muti, ntabwo babyemera, kuko abakoze isuzuma bakoze amakosa menshi kuko atubahirijwe standards wakoreshejwemo, nkuko babisobanuye haruguru. Ko nta bimenyetso simusiga byagaragajwe byemeza ko umuti lidocaine BP 2% ariwo wateye ikibazo. [28] Me Muhozi avuga ko Abacus Pharma yagombaga kugaragaza ko inenga izo raporo kuva na mbere hose, bakaba basaba urukiko gushingira kuri izo raporo kuko Abacus ifite icyicaro cyayo mu Buhinde, bakibaza uko yaza kuvuguruza raporo zakozwe na Minisiteri y’Ubuzima. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [29] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 3 y’itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko buri muburanyi agomba kugaragaza ukuri kw’ibyo aburana. Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 9 y’itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo iteganya ko ibimenyetso bihamya amasezerano cyangwa ibindi bikorwa bishobora gutangwa hakoreshejwe inyandiko, ubuhamya, uburyo bwo gucukumbura, ukwiyemerera k’umuburanyi cyangwa herekanywe ibindi bintu bifatika. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 44

## Page 70

[30] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 258 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano (CCLIII) iteganya ko igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritse. [31] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 259 y’Itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano (CCLIII) iteganya ko umuntu ntaryozwa ibyangiritse biturutse ku bikorwa bye bwite gusa, ahubwo anaryozwa ibyangiritse kubera umwete we muke cyangwa ubwitonzi bwe buke. [32] Urukiko rurasanga usaba indishyi kubera ibyo yangirijwe agomba kugaragaza ikosa yakorewe, ibyo yangirijwe, n’isano hagati y’ikosa n’ibyo yangirijwe. [33] Urukiko rurasanga Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent batanze ikirego basaba indishyi kubera umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% batewe n’ibitaro, HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, bibatera uburwayi, ibikomere n’ibisebe . Rurasanga HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD yagaragaje ko nta kosa yakoze ivura Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, ko ahubwo uburwayi, ibikomere n’ibisebe bagize byatewe n’umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% batewe, kandi uwo muti bakaba barawuguze kuri ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd. Urukiko rurasanga ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd nayo yemera ko umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% watewe Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na 45 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 71

Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, ariyo yawugurishije HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD. [34] Rurasanga rapport medical yakozwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD kuwa 25/05/2015, ivuga ko ku itariki 22/02/2015 uwitwa Rubagumya Innocent, wavutse 1995, yagiye kwivurizayo ashaka ko akurwaho inzara zari zinjiye kwino ryo ku kaguru (ablation d’ongle incarné du gros orteil droit), akaba yaratewe ikinya (Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2%), ariko agira ibibazo kuri iryo no (necrose cutanee avec oedeme du pied) bagakeka ko byatewe n’ikinya yatewe kandi ibyo byemejwe na laboratoire zayisuzumye. [35] Rurasanga rapport medical yakozwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD kuwa 25/05/2015, ivuga ko ku itariki 22/02/2015 uwitwa Bayitake Angelique, wavutse 1979, yagiye kwivurizayo (ablation de Kyste sebacé thoracique anterieur), aterwa ikinya ariko akavurwa iminsi 2, kubera ububabare bukomeye yagize nyuma yo guterwa ikinya (Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2%), ariko agira ibibazo ku gice cy’umubiri yagombaga kuvurwa (necrose du site d’infiltration par l’infirmier et le dermatologue) bagakeka ko byatewe n’ikinya yatewe kandi ibyo byemejwe na laboratoire zayisuzumye. [36] Rurasanga rapport medical yakozwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD kuwa 25/05/2015, ivuga ko ku itariki 21/02/2015 uwitwa Tukakira Rugigana Deus, wavutse 1983, yagiye kwivurizayo (request for circumcision), aterwa ikinya (Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2%) ndetse aranavurwa, asabwa gusubira ku bitaro ku itariki 24/02/2015, ariko basanga yagize ikibazo (a dry necrosis of the prepuce). bagakeka ko byatewe n’ikinya yatewe kandi ibyo byemejwe na laboratoire zayisuzumye. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 46

## Page 72

[37] Rurasanga rapport medical yakozwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD kuwa 25/05/2015, ivuga ko ku itariki 20/02/2015 uwitwa Mutesi Scola, wavutse 1985, yagiye kwivurizayo (Retrait d’implat hormonal sous cutanee au bras gauche), aterwa ikinya ariko akavurwa iminsi 2, kubera ububabare bukomeye yagize nyuma yo guterwa ikinya (Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2%), ariko agira ibibazo ku gice cy’umubiri yagombaga kuvurwa (necrose seche cutanee localisee); bagakeka ko byatewe n’ikinya yatewe kandi ibyo byemejwe na laboratoire zayisuzumye. [38] Rurasanga raporo yakozwe kuwa 15/04/2015 na kaminuza y’u Rwanda igaragaza ko umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% (Batch No.CM4032 LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICAL, INDIA) utujuje ubuzirantege2, kandi ariyo yatewe Tukakira Rugigana

2University of Rwanda, college of Medicine and health sciences laboratory of analysis of foods, drugs, water and toxics, reports analysis : conclusions: “ parameters that been analyzed are the pH, identification and assay, bacterial endotoxins, sterility test and research of impurities, following conclusions are be made: the pH is normal, there is no presence of bacterial endotoxins, sterility is negative and results are given in annex I of this report. Chromatographic analysis of Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2% (Batch No.CM4032 LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICAL, INDIA) both concentrated and diluted samples reveal impurities which are normally present when comparing with Lidocaine injection BP 2% samples from other manufactures. The UV spectrum has been found but we are unable to identify which molecule he is. We suggest that the client to send (submit) to other laboratories for further identification with advanced technique like IR or NMR. Chromatographic analyses of Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2% (Batch No. E0889, MAC’S PHARMACETICAL. Nairobi , KENYA) both concentrated and diluted samples reveal the presence of a second excipient Propyl Paraben in the product which it presence is not labelled or indicated in the vial of Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2%; The UV spectrum and the retention time of Propyl Paraben containing the sample match with those of reference 47 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 73

Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent. [39] Rurasanga raporo yakozwe na SGS (Life science services) kuwa 19/08/2015 nayo igaragaza ko umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% (identification: No.CM4032) utujuje ubuzirantege.3 Kandi uwo muti ariwo watewe Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent. [40] Urukiko rurasanga raporo zatanzwe ari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko umuti ndlr lidocaine 2% (Batch No.CM4032 LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICAL, INDIA) watewe Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique na Rubagumya Clinton Innocent utari wujuje ubuzinenge. [41] Rurasanga “medical legal report” yakozwe na “king Faisal hospital Kigali” igaragaza ko: kuri Mutesi Schola afite ubumuga buri ku giciro cya 8%4; kuri Tukakira Rugigana Deus

standard. We recommend the client not to use it without ensuring that it can adverse effect to patients (not conform to Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2%). As requested by the client, research, identification, assay and research of impurities has been done. However, these impurities have not been identified due to lack more advanced techniques of detection” 3SGS, CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS, Product: Lidocaine Hydrochloride Injection, USP, identification: CM4032, Qty Rec’d : 7, received date : 24/7/2015. “The residue obtained responds to identification test A under Lidocaine: pass. Test: pH, Method: USP <791>, specification: 5.0 -7.0, result: 6.6, status: pass. Test: Assay, Method: USP, specification: 95 -105.0 % LC, result: mg found 20.1mg/ml, Assay 94.5 % LC, status: fail. 4 « her inability to work is estimated at 2 months and the permanent incapacity is evaluated at 8% » ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 48

## Page 74

afite bumuga buri ku giciro cya 30%5, kuri Rubagumya Clinton Innocent afite ubumuga buri ku giciro cya 3%6. [42] Urukiko rurasanga ABACUS Pharma kuvuga ko isuzuma ryakozwe rifite amakosa kuko ritubahirije standards za pharamacopeia zagombaga gukoreshwa mu isuzuma, nta gaciro byahabwa kuko izo raporo zasabwe na Minisiteri y’Ubuzima kandi ABACUS Pharma itigeze izinenga, igaragarize inenge yazo Minisiteri y’Ubuzima, ndetse na Minisiteri y’Ubuzima itigeze igaragaza ko ifite inenge. [43] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 260 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko umuntu ntaryozwa gusa ibyangiritse kubera ibikorwa bye bwite, ahubwo anaryozwa ibyangijwe n’ibikorwa by’abantu yishingiye cyangwa n’ibintu ashinzwe kurinda. [44] Urukiko rurasanga ABACUS Pharma ariyo igomba kuryozwa ingaruka y’umuti lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2% yagurishije HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, abahanga bagaragaje ko itujuje ubuziranenge, ikagirira ingaruka abarwayi bari bagiye kwivuza muri HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, batanze ikirego mu rukiko rubanza. Bityo rurasanga nta kosa urukiko rubanza rwakoze mu kwemeza ko Abacus Pharma ariyo igomba kuryozwa ingaruka y’uwo muti.

5“Erectile dysfunction due to the initial extensive penile skin necrosis, the subsenquent multiple surgeries and penile curvature. The sexual incapacity is evaluated at 80% today. The permanent physical incapacity is estimated to 30%. NB: the definitive sexual and physical incapacity will be most accurately estimated after additional corrective plastic surgery for penile curvature as suggested by the treating plastic surgeon.” 6 his inability to work is estimated at 45 days and the permanent incapacity is evaluated at 3%. 49 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 75

Ku byerekeranye n’indishyi zasabwe a. Gusuzuma ingano z’indishyi z’ububabare zatangwa muri uru rubanza [45] Abahagarariye Mutesi Scola bavuga ko hashingiwe ku mafoto agaragaza ububabare yagize n’ingaruka bwamugizeho, yari yasabye miliyoni 150.000.000Frw. Ariko nawe yaratangajwe no kubona urukiko ruvuga ko ari ikirenga, kandi bakabura naho urukiko rwashingiye rutanga miliyoni 3.000.000Frw gusa. Bakaba basaba urukiko Rukuru gutanga izi ndishyi zose zasabwe uko ari 150.000.000Frw. [46] Abahagarariye Bayitake Angelique bavuga ko hashingiwe ku mafoto agaragaza ububabare yagize n’ingaruka bwamugizeho, yari yasabye miliyoni 150.000.000Frw. Ariko nawe yaratangajwe no kubona urukiko ruvuga ko ari ikirenga, kandi bakabura naho urukiko rwashingiye rutanga miliyoni 3.000.000Frw gusa. Bakaba basaba urukiko Rukuru gutanga izi ndishyi zose zasabwe uko ari 150.000.000Frw [47] Abahagarariye Tukakira Rugigana Deus bavuga ko uhereye ku mafoto yonyine agaragaza ububabare bukomeye cyane urega yagize ku buryo yagombaga guhabwa indishyi zose nkuko yazisabye. Bakaba basaba urukiko Rukuru gutanga izi ndishyi zose zasabwe. [48] Uhagarariye ABACUS PHARMA RWANDA Ltd avuga ko Urukiko rwatanze indishyi nta bimenyetso bifatika rushingiyeho ruzigena gusa rugendeye ku mafoto yatanzwe n’abareze ngo akaba ariyo agomba kugaragaza ububabare n’ibisebe bagize. Ko amafoto Urukiko rwashingiyeho ntagaragaza igihe n’ahantu ndetse n’uwayafashe ku buryo ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 50

## Page 76

yafatwaho nk’ikimenyetso gifatika nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 122 y’itegeko ryerekeye ibimenyetso mu manza n’itangwa ryabyo. [49] Abahagarariye HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD bavuga ko ntagipimo cyemeza ingano y’ububabare na niyo mpamvu hafatwa icyemezo gishingiye kubimenyetso simusiga byuwareze ariko hakagenderwa kubushishozi bw’umucamanza, ikindi amafoto mashyashya ashobora kuba ari amahimbano mugihe ntabisobanuro by’umuganga biyemeza; ikindi kimenyetso gishobora gushingirwaho ni raporo ya muganga. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [50] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 258 y’itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano (CCLIII) iteganya ko “igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritseˮ. [51] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 260 y’igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano iteganya ko umuntu ntaryozwa gusa ibyangiritse kubera ibikorwa bye bwite, ahubwo anaryozwa ibyangijwe n'ibikorwa by'abantu yishingiye cyangwa n'ibintu ashinzwe kurinda. [52] Urukiko rurasanga raporo zagaragajwe na HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD zagaragaje ko abareze bagize ikibazo n’umuti batewe, ndetse na raporo zavuye muri King Faysal Hospital zigaragaza ko koko abareze mu rwego rwa mbere bagize ibibazo by’ubuzima. Ariko kubyerekeranye n’ingano y’indishyi nta 51 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 77

mategeko ateganya uko yabarwa, zikaba zibarwa mu bushishozi bw’urukiko. Rurasanga n’abareze basaba indishyi nabo ntibagaragaje aho bashingiye basaba ko mukuyabara bahabwa ayo basabye, ndetse no mu bujurire bakaba batagaragaza icyatuma ayo bahawe mu rwego rwa mbere yahinduka cyangwa yakwiyongera. Bityo rurasanga nta kosa urukiko rwakoze mukubagenera indishyi nkuko rwazigenye. b. Gusuzuma niba HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD itaryozwa indishyi zo gutererana abarega [53] Abahagarariye Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique bavuga ko HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ikwiye kuryozwa indishyi zo kuba yaratereranye aba client bayo aribo barega kuko yagombaga kumenya uko bameze nuko bavurwa mbere yo kwita kukumenya icyabateye ikibazo. Ko Ibitaro bya CROIX DU SUD bikwiye gutanga indishyi abarega basabye zo kuba baratereranywe kuko babaye abarwayi babyo ku mpamvu z’ibitaro, ntabwo bari abarwayi bindwara runaka, ahubwo nyuma yo guterwa umuti, bavuwe ingaruka z’umuti batewe. Ko impamvu HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ikwiye gutanga izi ndishyi zo gutereranwa, n’uko abarega, na mbere y’uko Minisante imenyeshwa ikibazo cyavutse mu bitaro bya CROIX DU SUD, cyangwa kwirukanka gushakisha muri za Labaratoires I Butare na handi, cyangwa na mbere y’uko ABACUS PHARMA Ltd imenyeshwa ikibazo cy’umuti yacuruje, abarega bari bamaze kugira ikibazo kandi ibitaro bikizi kuburyo ibitaro byagombaga kuba birimo kubavura cyangwa kubavuza. Ariko, kuba ibitaro byaracecetse, abarega bagashwiragira ahantu hose nta mikoro bafite yo kwita ku ngaruka zako kanya batari biteguye, ibitaro ubwabyo ntibyigeze bibasobanurira icyo birimo gukora kugira ngo babone n’uko kwihangana cyangwa uwabitaho, bagasanga ibitaro bikwiye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 52

## Page 78

kuryozwa indishyi zo gutereranwa nk’uko zasabwe kuri buri wese (Tukakira-100.000.000Frw, Mutesi Scola-50.000.000Frw na Bayitake Angelique-50.000.000Frw). [54] Icyo HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD yisobanuraho: HCS imaze kumenya ikibazo abarwayi bagize yakoze enquete kandi ibimenyetso byavuye muri iyo enquete nibyo byatumye haboneka ibimenyetso urukiko rwashingiyeho, kubera amafaranga HCS yakoresheje nkuko bigaragara ku rupapuro rwa 6 agace ka 15 ka kopi y’urubanza, ibimenyetso bitatu bagaragaza ko uwo umuti ariwo wateye abarega ikibazo ntabwo ari amakosa y’ubuvuzi UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [55] Hakurikijwe ingingo ya 258 y’itegeko ryo kuwa 30 Nyakanga 1888 rishyiraho urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano ibyerekeye imirimo nshinganwa cyangwa amasezerano (CCLIII) iteganya ko “igikorwa cyose cy’umuntu cyangirije undi gitegeka nyirugukora ikosa rigikomokaho kuriha ibyangiritseˮ. [56] Urukiko rurasanga nta makosa y’ubuvuzi abareze bagaragaje ko HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD yaba yarakoze, kuko nkuko byagaragajwe haruguru, amakosa yaryojwe ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd kuko byagaragaye ko ari umuti wayo wateye ikibazo abareze. Bityo rurasanga izo ndishyi zisabwa n’abareze ntaho zishingiye, Urukiko rubanza rukaba nta kosa rwakoze mu kwemeza ko izo ndishyi zitagomba gutangwa.

53 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 79

Ku byerekeranye n’indishyi z’ikurikirana rubanza n’igihembo cy’Avoka [57] Uhagarariye ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd avuga ko basaba indishyi z'ikurikirana rubanza za 500.000Frw n’indishyi z’igihembo cy’avoka cya 1000.000Frw; basaba kandi indishyi z’akababaro za 2.000.000Frw zo gushorwa mu manza n’indishyi zo guharabikwa mu itangazamakuru za 3.000.000Frw. [58] Abahagarariye HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD bavuga ko batanze ubujurire bwuririye kubundi hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 167 CPCCSA, barasaba urukiko gutegeka Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique kwishyura amafaranga 200.000Frw yikurikirana rubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cy’ avocat. [59] Abahagarariye Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique basaba Urukiko gutegeka abaregwa gusubiza amafaranga y’igarama ndetse n’amafaranga y’avoka ndetse n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [60] Urukiko rurasanga ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd itagomba guhabwa indishyi isaba kuko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite. Rurasanga kandi indishyi HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD isaba Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique itagomba kuzihabwa kuko ari uburenganzira bwabo bwo kujurira. Rurasanga na none indishyi zisabwa na Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique zitangomba gutangwa kuko ubujurire bwabo nta shingiro zifite. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 54

## Page 80

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [61] Rwemeje kwakira ubujurire bwatanzwe na Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola na Bayitake Angelique, rubusuzumye rusanga nta shingiro bufite. [62] Rwemeje kwakira ubujurire bwatanzwe na ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd, rubusuzumye rusanga nta shingiro bufite. [63] Rwemeje ko urubanza RC0828/15/TGI/NYGE rwaciwe kuwa 03/06/2016 n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Nyarugenge rudahindutse. [64] Rutegetse ko amagarama yatanzwe n’abajuriye barega ahwanye n’ibyakozwe mu rubanza.

55 TUKAKIRA N’ABANDI v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD N’ABANDI

## Page 82

IMANZA Z’UBUCURUZI

## Page 84

FOREST COMPANY VOLCANOES GORILLAS (FCVG) Ltd v IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA) [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA00055/2016/SC (Kayitesi Z P.J., Mutashya na Karimunda, J.) 29 Nzeri 2017] Amategeko agenga umusoro – Umusoro ku nyongeragaciro – Umusoro ku nyungu – Amafaranga ahabwa uwatsindiye isoko rya Leta kugirango atangire imirimo iyo ariyo yose asonerwa umusoro kuko adafatwa nkubwishyu – Itegeko Nº37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 10 – Itegeko Nº12/2007 ryo kuwa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, ingingo ya 86. Incamake y’ikibazo: Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd yakorewe igenzura n’abagenzuzi bo mu kigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro ku musoro wo mu mwaka wa 2011, 2012, na 2013 hanyuma itegekwa kwishyura nta nteguza imisoro itandukanye ikubiyemo umusoro ku nyungu, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, umusoro ufatirwa itatanze ndetse icibwa n’ibihano n’inyungu ihwanye na 125.737.718Frw. FCVG yajuririye icyo cyemezo kwa Komiseri Mukuru nawe ayisubiza ko ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe yemeza ko, ku musoro yaciwe hakurwamo ungana na 20.186.699Frw, ajyanye n’umusoro ufatirwa wa 15% kuko yawugaragarije ibimenyetso bityo akishyura umusoro ungana na 105.551.109Frw. 59

## Page 85

FCVG ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo iregera Urukiko rw’ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge irusaba kwemeza ko, nta musoro ku nyongeragaciro ugomba gucibwa kuri avansi yo gutangira imirimo ya 90.876.120Frw yahawe muri 2012, ko avansi yo gutangira imirimo ya 52.665.710Frw yahawe muri 2012 atabarirwa mu mafaranga acibwaho ihazabu yo kutiyandikisha mu musoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA), ko yacibwa ibihano bibariwe kuri 50%, ko avansi yo gutangira imirimo yahawe muri 2012 ikwiye gukurwa mu mafaranga acibwaho umusoro ku nyungu, ko umusoro ku nyungu wa 2011, 2012 na 2013 ukwiye kubarwa hashingiwe ku gipimo cy’urwunguko rwa 3%; hashingiwe ku ihame ryo kugereranya abasoreshwa bakora imirimo isa kuko COCOASTER bakora imirimo imwe ariko isoreshwa, ko Urukiko rutegeka Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro kwishyura igihembo cy’Avoka. Urukiko rwemeje ko ikirego cyayo nta shingiro gifite, ko avansi yo gutangira imirimo Leta y’u Rwanda yahaye FCVG Ltd iri mu maboko yayo, Leta itari kuyishyurira umusoro, ahubwo ari umucuruzi wiyishyurira umusoro, bityo urukiko rwemeza ko amafaranga ya avansi yo gutangira imirimo ikwiye kuyishyurira umusoro ku nyungu hakiyongeraho n’ibihano by’ibyaha yakoze mu kutayishyura, ndetse runayitegeka kwishyura Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza. FCVG Ltd ntiyishimiye uwo mwanzuro, ijuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko avansi yo gutangira imirimo itari gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko atari ubwishyu kandi ko hari ibyo yaregeye urukiko ntirwabisuzuma. Urukiko nyuma yo gusuzuma ubujurire rwemeje ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe kuko rwasanze FCVG Ltd yarakoreye inyemezabwishyu avansi yo gutangira imirimo yahawe zigaragaza umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 60

## Page 86

kandi n’ibihano yaciwe kubera kunyereza umusoro byaratanzwe hashingiwe ku mategeko agenga isoresha nta nteguza. FCVG Ltd ntiyanyuzwe n’imikirize y’urwo rubanza maze ijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko avansi yo gutangira imirimo igomba gucibwaho umusoro TVA kuko wanditse ku nyemezabuguzi kandi ataribyo, ibihano bikwiye kubarirwa kuri 50% aho kuba 100% hashingiwe ku ihame rya «indépendance de l’exercice fiscal»; avansi yo gutangira imirimo ikurwa mu mafaranga asoreshwa umusoro ku nyungu, asaba kandi urukiko gutegeka ko yasoreshwa ku kigero cy’urwunguko nkicyo abo bakora akazi kamwe basoreshwaho. Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahoro (RRA) cyo gisobanura ko avansi yo gutangira imirimo isonewe ari iyatanzwe ku mirimo y’ubwubatsi kandi akaba atari yo yakozwe na FCVG Ltd. Isobanura kandi ko iyo FCVG Ltd yumva idakwiye gucibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro yari kuvangura fagitire zayo zijyanye n’isoko yari yatsindiye n’izijyanye na avansi yo gutangira imirimo ariko ko atari uko yabikoze ahubwo ko fagitire zijyanye niyo avansi yo gutangira imirimo yakoreye MINAGRI yashyizemo n’uwo musoro, irawuhabwa ariko ikaba idashaka kuwushyikiriza umusoresha. Incamake y’icyemezo:1. Amafaranga ahabwa uwatsindiye isoko rya Leta kugirango atangire imirimo asonerwa umusoro kuko adafatwa nkubwishyu bityo kuba FCVG Ltd yarakoze inyemezabuguzi igashyiraho ibicibwa umusoro n’ibitawucibwa ubwabyo ntibihagije kugirango iryozwe umusoro kuri avansi yo gutangira imirimo mu gihe itari mu byo itegeko riteganya ko bisoreshwa 61 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 87

2. Imirimo y’ubwubatsi ivugwa mu Itegeko siyo yonyine isonerwa umusoro kuri avansi yo gutangira imirimo kuko yavuzwe nk’urugero bityo imirimo iyo ariyo yose cyangwa avansi yahawe uwegukanye isoko iryo ariryo ryose, isonerwa umusoro. 3. Avansi yo gutangira imirimo ntibarirwa mu mafaranga agomba gucibwaho ibihano by’ihazabu ku mucuruzi utiyandikishije ku musoro kandi yabisabwaga n’Itegeko kuko atari mu gicuruzo cyangwa mu rwunguko rw’uwahawe isoko. 4. Iyo sosiyete itagaragaza ibitabo by’ibaruramari cyangwa ngo igaragaze ibaruramari rya sosiyete y’igererenya nayo, isoreshwa ku rwunguko rugereranyije. yagaragarije umusoresha. 5. Mu gihe hari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko umusoreshwa yakoze imenyekanishamusoro agamije kuwunyereza, agomba kubihanirwa acibwa ihazabu ingana n’ijana ku ijana (100%) by’umusoro yanyereje. 6. Amafaranga y’igihembo cy’avoka nay’ikurikiranarubanza ntagenwa igihe buri mu buranyi wese ku bimureba haribyo yatsindiwe. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe. Urubanza RCOMA 00184/2016/CHC/HCC rujuririrwa ruhindutse kuri bimwe. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye ku baburanyi bombi. Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe muri 2015, ingingo ya 164. Itegeko No37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 10. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 62

## Page 88

Itegeko No12/2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta, Ingingo ya 87 na 89. Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, ingingo ya 10, 45,60,63 na 64. Itegeko No16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro, ingingo ya 16 na 37. Itegeko No06/2001 ryo ku wa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ingingo ya 12 na16. Imanza zifashijijwe: Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro v. Misigaro Louis, RCOMA0074/11/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’ikirenga ku wa 11/04/2014. Ikigo imisoro n’Amahôro v. Rubare Josias, RCOMA0149/12/CS, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/03/2016. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Yvon Colson, Le principe de légalité de l’impôt et l’interprétation des lois fiscales in Pacoli no 327, 2011, p.2. URUBANZA I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) yakorewe igenzura ry’umusoro mu myaka ya 2011, 2012 na 2013, icibwa umusoro n’ibihano, itegekwa kwishyura 125.737.718Frw.FCVG Ltd ntiyishimiye umwanzuro w’abagenzuzi, ijuririra Komiseri 63 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 89

Mukuru, nawe asubiza ku wa 08/10/2012, ayimenyesha ko ubujurire bwayo bufite ishingiro ku bijyanye n’umusoro ufatirwa wa 15% ungana na 1.293.537Frw igomba kwemererwa kuko yawugaragarije ibimenyetso, yemeza ko ku musoro yaciwe hakurwaho ungana na 20.186.699Frw, ikishyura ungana na 105.551.109Frw. [2] FCVG Ltd ntiyishimiye uwo mwanzuro iregera Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge irusaba kwemeza ko : a. Nta musoro ku nyongeragaciro ugomba gucibwa “avance de démarrage” ya 90.876.120Frw mu mwaka wa 2012 ; b. Avance de démarrage ya 52.665.710Frw mu mwaka wa 2012 idakwiye kubarirwa mu mafaranga acibwaho ihazabu yo kutiyandikisha mu musoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) ; c. FCVG Ltd igomba gucibwa ibihano bya 50% aho gucibwa ibihano bya 100% ; d. Avance de démarrage FCVG Ltd yahawe muri 2012 akwiye gukurwa mu mafaranga acibwaho umusoro ku nyungu ; e. Umusoro ku nyungu wa 2011, 2012 na 2013 ukwiye kubarwa hashingiwe ku gipimo cy’urwunguko rwa 3% ; f. Urukiko rutegeka Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura igihembo cy’Avoka kingana na 3.000.000Frw. [3] Mu rubanza RCOM1574/15/TC/NYGE rwaciwe ku wa 24/03/2016, Urukiko rwasanze “avance de démarrage” Leta y’u Rwanda yahaye FCVG Ltd iri mu maboko yayo, Leta itari kuyishyurira umusoro, ahubwo ari umucuruzi wiyishyurira ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 64

## Page 90

umusoro hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 29 y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, rwemeza ko amafaranga ya «avance de démarrage » ikwiye kuyishyurira umusoro ku nyungu hakiyongeraho n’ibihano by’ibyaha yakoze mu kutayishyura, bityo ko ikirego cyayo nta shingiro gifite, itegekwa kwishyura Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza. [4] FCVG Ltd ntiyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ijuririra Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko « avance de démarrage » itari gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko atari ubwishyu kandi ko hari ingingo Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwashyikirijwe ariko ntirwazisuzuma. [5] Mu rubanza RCOMA00184/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe ku wa 29/07/2016, Urukiko rwasanze FCVG Ltd yarakoreye « avance de démarage » yahawe inyemezabwishyu (factures) zigaragaza umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) kandi n’ibihano yaciwe kubera kunyereza umusoro byaratanzwe hashingiwe ku mategeko agenga isoresha nta nteguza, rwemeza ko izo nyemezabwishyu zihagije kugira ngo yishyure umusoro kuko iyo “avance de démarrage” itari ikiri inguzanyo, bityo ko nta gihindutse ku mikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe. [6] FCVG Ltd ntiyanyuzwe n’icyo cyemezo ijuririra mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga ivuga ko : a) Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko « avance de démarrage» igomba gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) kuko wanditse ku nyemezabuguzi kandi ataribyo kuko umurongo watanzwe mu rubanza RCOMA 0074/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku 65 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 91

wa 11/04/2014 ari uko « avance de démarrage » isubizwa uko yakabaye harimo n’icyiswe umusoro ku nyongeragaciro hamwe na « acompte » ya 3%; b) Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwavuze ko « avance de démarrage » yagombaga gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko wanditse ku nyemezabuguzi ariko ntirwagaragaza niba inyemezabuguzi zashingiweho FCVG Ltd icibwa ibihano nazo zanditsweho uwo musoro, ko niba hari ikosa ryabaye muri 2012 nta mpamvu y’uko ahanirwa imyaka itarabayemo amakosa bivuze ko ibihano bikwiye kubarirwa kuri 50% aho kuba 100% hashingiwe ku ihame rya « indépendance de l’exercice fiscal » ; c) Uru Rukiko ruramutse rwemeje ko « avance de démarrage » idasoreshwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro (TVA) kuko atari ubwishyu, rwakomeza rukanemeza ko ikwiye gukurwa no mu mafaranga asoreshwa umusoro ku nyungu. d) Mu kubara umusoro ku nyungu, umusoresha yagereranyije FCVG Ltd n’abandi bahuje imirimo, amubarira urwunguko rwa 21% kandi azi neza ko uwitwa Cocoaster Ltd bakora imirimo imwe, yamenyekanishije urwunguko rwa 1% mu mwaka wa 2011, urwa 6% mu mwaka wa 2012 n’urwa 1% mu mwaka wa 2013, impuzandengo (moyenne/average) ikaba 3% FCVG Ltd yamenyekanishije. [7] Iburanisha ryashyizwe kuwa 20/06/2017 ariko uwo munsi ntirwaburanishwa kubera ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyari kitarishyura ihazabu mbonezamubano cyari cyaciwe mu rundi rubanza, iburanisha ryimurirwa kuwa 28/06/2017 Uwo munsi ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 66

## Page 92

iburanisha ribera mu ruhame, FCVG Ltd iburanirwa na Me Nsengiyumva Abel naho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kiburanirwa na Me Byiringiro Bajeni. [8] Iburanisha rigitangira, Me Byiringiro Bajeni yamenyesheje Urukiko ko inzitizi y’iburabubasha ry’uru Rukiko yari yatanze ishingiye ku kuba FCVG Ltd yaratsinzwe ku mpamvu zimwe mu Nkiko zombi zibanza ayiretse kuko yasanze atari uko bimeze. [9] Urukiko rwategetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kugaragaza niba umusoreshwa witwa COCOASTER akora imirimo isa n’iya FCVG Ltd no kumenya ingano y’urwunguko yasoresherejweho, urubanza rwimurirwa kuwa 12/07/2017 kugira ngo ababuranyi bazagire icyo bavuga kuri ayo makuru. Uwo munsi iburanisha ribera mu ruhame, ababuranyi bahagarariwe nka mbere, urubanza rurapfundikirwa. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURA RYABYO II.1 Kumenya niba « avance de démarrage » icibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro n’umusoro ku nyungu. [10] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko, ku wa 12/09/2012, FCVG Ltd yahawe na Minisiteri y’Ubuhinzi n’Ubworozi (MINAGRI) « avance de démarrage » ingana na 42.815.120Frw, ku wa 12/10/2012 ihabwa indi ingana na 48.061.400Frw. Asobanura ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyafashe iyo « avance de démarrage » nk’ubwishyu, babijurira kwa Komiseri Mukuru, ku mpapuro za 5, 6 na 9 z’icyemezo cye bikaba bigaragara ko nawe yakomeje kubifata atyo, bageze mu Rukiko 67 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 93

Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi narwo rwemeza ko ayo mafaranga ari ubwishyu bugomba gucibwaho umusoro. Asobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwashingiye icyemezo cyarwo ku kuba FCVG Ltd yaribeshye igashyira umusoro ku nyemezabwishyu yakoreye MINAGRI, rwirengagiza ikibazo rwari rwabajijwe cyo kumenya niba « avance de démarrage » isoreshwa. Avuga ko « avance de démarrage » yasobanuwe bihagije n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyaburanaga na Misigaro Louis,1 rwemeza ko atari ubwishyu kuko ari amafaranga asubizwa Leta isoko ireba ryaba ryarangiye cyangwa ritarangiye, ariyo mpamvu asaba uru Rukiko kuguma mu murongo rwemeje, rukavuga ko ariya 90.876.520Frw atagomba gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro n’umusoro ku nyungu. [11] Me Byiringiro Bajeni avuga ko Itegeko risobanura neza ko « avance de démarrage » isonewe umusoro ari iyatanzwe ku mirimo y’ubwubatsi kandi akaba atari yo yakozwe na FCVG Ltd. Asobanura ko iyo FCVG Ltd yumva idakwiye gucibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro yari kuvangura fagitire zayo zijyanye n’isoko yari yatsindiye n’izijyanye na « avance de démarrage», ariko ko atari uko yabikoze, ahubwo ko fagitire zijyanye niyo « avance de démarrage » yakoreye MINAGRI yashyizemo n’uwo musoro, irawuhabwa ariko ikaba idashaka kuwushyikiriza umusoresha, ariyo mpamvu asanga ibisobanuro byatanzwe n’uru Rukiko kuri « avance de démarrage » mu rubanza Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyaburanaga na Misigaro Louis ntacyo byarumarira kuko zitandukanye bitewe nuko Misigaro Louis yari akurikiranweho kudaca uwo musoro muri fagitire za « avance de démarrage » yari yakoze.

1Reba urubanza RCOMA0074/11/CS hagati y’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro na Misigaro Louis, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/04/2014. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 68

## Page 94

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [12] Ingingo ya 12, igika cya mbere y’Itegeko No06/2001 ryo kuwa 20/01/2001 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ryakoreshwaga FCVG Ltd ihabwa “avance de démarrage” iteganya ko “ibintu n’imirimo bisoreshwa […] iyo ibintu bikorwa hagamijwe ikiguzi n’usoreshwa wiyandikishije ubwe, uwo bafatanije cyangwa umukozi we […]” Naho ingingo ya 16, igika cya mbere y’iryo tegeko ikavuga ko “agaciro gasoreshwa kuri buri kintu cyangwa umurimo kagenwa […] ku buryo bukurikira: a) uretse ibyo iri tegeko riteganya ukundi, agaciro gasoreshwa ku kintu cyangwa ku murimo ni ikiguzi cyabyo cyarishywe mu mafaranga cyangwa ku bundi buryo.” [13] Ingingo ya 87 y’Itegeko No12/2007 ryo kuwa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta ryakoreshwaga FCVG Ltd ihabwa “avance de démarrage” iteganya ko “avansi yo gutangira imirimo itagomba kurenga makumyabiri ku ijana (20%) by’igiciro cyose cy’isoko kandi yishyurwa ari uko uwegukanye isoko abanje guha urwego rutanga isoko ingwate ingana n’amafaranga asabirwa avansi. Iyo ngwate igomba gutangwa na Banki cyangwa Ikigo cy’Imari kibifitiye ububasha.” Naho ingingo ya 89 y’iryo Tegeko No12/2007 ryo kuwa 27/03/2007 rigenga amasoko ya Leta ryakoreshwaga FCVG Ltd ihabwa “avance de démarrage” iteganya ko “avansi yahawe uwegukanye isoko isubizwa hakoreshejwe ikatwa ry’umubare runaka w’amafaranga ku nyemezabuguzi zatanzwe kandi zemejwe. Igitabo cy’amabwiriza agenga ipiganwa giteganya ijanisha ry’amafaranga azagenda akatwa kugeza igihe avansi yose yishyuriwe. Ingwate ya avansi isubizwa uwegukanye isoko mu minsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye igihe avansi yose yatanzwe yishyuriwe.” 69 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 95

[14] Ingingo ya 16 y’Itegeko No16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 rigena imisoro itaziguye ku musaruro iteganya ko inyungu ku bikorwa by’ubucuruzi ingana n’umusaruro wakiriwe ku bikorwa byose hakuwemo ibyasohowe byose ku birebana n’ibyo bikorwa. Inyungu ku bikorwa irimo kandi umusaruro uva mu igurisha ry’umutungo uwo ariwo wose no ku mafaranga ava mu irangizamutungo yakiriwe mu gihe cy'umusoro. Naho ingingo ya 37 y’iryo Tegeko igateganya ko umusaruro ku nyungu z’amasosiyete ukurwa ku nyungu z’ubucuruzi zabonywe n’amasosiyete. [15] Mu nyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza harimo Invoice of Advance no01/RSSP/10/2012 yakozwe na FCVG Ltd kuwa 24/10/2012 yishyuza 48.061.400Frw, muri ayo mafaranga hakaba habariwemo umusoro ku nyongeragaciro wa 18% ungana na 7.331.400Frw na acompte ya 3% ingana na 1.221.900Frw, ku mbonerahamwe y’amafaranga yishyuwe FCVG Ltd bigaragara ko yishyuwe amafaranga yose hamwe angana na 112.428.925Frw, umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ukaba waranganaga na 11.944.489Frw naho acompte ya 3% ikaba yaranganaga na 1.990.748Frw, cyakora bigaragara ko kuri 48.061.400Frw ya avance de démarrage yishyuwe ku wa 09/11/2012 nta musoro ku nyongeragaciro cyangwa “acompte” biriho. [16] Muri dosiye harimo na none inyandiko yitwa “facture no2-06/12/2011” yakozwe ku wa 06/12/2011 yishyuza igice cya kabiri cya avansi yo gutangira imirimo ingana na 6.506.528Frw, icyo gice kijyanye na Nzeri 2011, Gashyantare 2012, ayo mafaranga akaba yarishyuwe ku wa 06/01/2012, imbonerahamwe yishyuriweho ikaba ntaho igaragaza ko hari umusoro waciwe kuri ayo mafaranga (cote 24) ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 70

## Page 96

[17] Urukiko rurasanga igisoreshwa ku mirimo ari ikiguzi cyayo cyaba cyarishyuwe mu mafaranga cyangwa mu bundi buryo, ni ukuvuga ko nyuma yo gukora imirimo yatsindiye, umusoreshwa akorera uwayimuhaye inyemezabwishyu igaragaza agaciro gahwanye n’imirimo yakoze, akaba ari nako gaherwaho amenyekanisha umusoro ku bwishyu yakiriye. [18] Urukiko rurasanga, nk’uko rwabyemeje mu rubanza Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyaburanga na Misigaro Louis,2 ndetse rukongera no kubigarukaho mu rubanza icyo Kigo cyaburanaga na Rubare Josias,3avansi yo gutangiza imirimo n’amafaranga ahabwa uwatsindiye isoko kugirango abashe gutangira gushyira mu bikorwa isoko yatsindiye, akaba nta gice cy’umurimo runaka aba yishyuriwe ku buryo yafatwa nk’ubwishyu, ahubwo uko uwatsindiye isoko agenda yishyuza agaciro k’imirimo yakoze, agenda avanamo (déduction) ingano runaka ya avansi nk’uko byumvikanweho n’impande zagiranye amasezerano, akazarangiza kwishyurwa imirimo yakoze yose na ya avansi yose isubijwe uwamuhaye isoko, ntiyaba rero isubizwa uwatanze isoko, ngo yongere ifatwe nk’ubwishyu kuri iryo soko. [19] Urukiko rurasanga uwatanze isoko afite inshingano ahabwa n’Itegeko zo gukurikirana uburyo avansi yo gutangira imirimo ikoreshwa, yasanga idakoreshwa ibijyanye n’isoko ryatanzwe igafatwa nk’umwenda kandi bikamuhesha uburenganzira bwo gufatira ingwate yatanzwe kugirango

2 Urubanza RCOMA0074/11/CS hagati y’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro na Misigaro Louis, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/04/2014, ibika bya 18-20. 3 Urubanza RCOMA0149/12/CS hagati y’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro na Rubare Josias, rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 11/03/2016, ibika cya 15 na 16. 71 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 97

yiyishyure, naho avansi yakoreshwa kandi yasubizwa uko bikwiye, uwatanze isoko akarekura ingwate yari yatanzwe mu gihe cy’iminsi mirongo itatu (30) uhereye igihe avansi yose yasubirijwe abari batanze isoko, nabyo bishimangira ko ibyo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kivuga ko avansi ari ubwishyu nta shingiro bifite kuko bibaye ari ubwishyu byaba bivuze ko iguma mu maboko y’uwayihawe aho gusubizwa uwatanze isoko. [20] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ihame rusange rigenga amategeko y’imisoro mu Rwanda ari uko umusoro ushyirwaho, uhindurwa kandi ukurwaho n’Itegeko, ndetse ukaba utasonerwa cyangwa ngo ugabanywe bidakozwe mu buryo buteganywa n’Itegeko, Itegeko Nshinga4 rikaba rishimangira iri hame kugirango umusoro ujye ushyirwaho n’urwego rubifitiye ububasha kandi umusoreshwa amenye hakiri kare imisoro agomba kwishyura,5bityo kuba FCVG Ltd yarashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 89 y’Itegeko N012/2007 ryo ku wa 27/03/2007 yibukijwe haruguru ivuga ko avansi yahawe uwegukanye isoko isubizwa hakoreshejwe ikatwa ry’umubare runaka w’amafaranga ku nyemezabuguzi zatanzwe kandi zemejwe, igakora inyemezabuguzi yashyizeho ibicibwa umusoro n’ibitawucibwa ubwabyo ntibihagije kugirango iryozwe umusoro kuri avance de démarrage mu gihe iyo avansi itari mu byo itegeko riteganya ko bisoreshwa, bityo avansi ya

4«Umusoro ushyirwaho, uhindurwa cyangwa ukurwaho n’itegeko. Nta sonerwa cyangwa igabanywa ry’umusoro rishobora gukorwa mu gihe bidateganywa n’itegeko. » Reba ingingo ya 164 y’ Itegeko Nshinga rya Repubulika y’u Rwanda ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 2015. 5 « Cette interdiction vise à garantir au citoyen que l’impôt qu’il doit payer a été mis en place exclusivement par une institution qu’il a élue. Le citoyen est donc en droit de savoir à l’avance la hauteur des prélèvements qu’il va devoir subir. » Reba Yvon Colson, « Le principe de légalité de l’impôt et l’interprétation des lois fiscales » in Pacoli No 327, 2011, p.2. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 72

## Page 98

90.876.520Frw MINAGRI yahaye FCVG Ltd ikaba idakwiye gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. [21] Urukiko rurasanga kandi ibitegenywa n’ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 2, y’Itegeko No37/2012 ryo kuwa 09/11/2012 rishyiraho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ko “ […] igihe giteganijwe umusoro wakirwa ku bintu no kuri serivisi ari ikibanziriza ibindi mu bihe bikurikira : 1o[…], 2o ku itariki igicuruzwa cyangwa serivisi byishyuriweho harimo n’ubwishyu bw’igice. Cyakora, aka gace ntikareba avansi ihabwa abubaka nyuma bakazayisubiza bayikura mu nyemezabuguzi bakorera umukiriya nabyo bishimangira ko “avance de démarrage” atari ubwishyu, iyi ngingo ahubwo ikaba yibutsa ihame ry’uko igisoreshwa ari ubwishyu bwaba ubw’ibyakozwe cyangwa ibyaguzwe byose cyangwa igice cyabyo, kandi yasomerwa hamwe n’ingingo ya 87 n’iya 89 z’Itegeko No12/2007 ryo kuwa 27/03/2007 ryavuzwe hejuru, zivuga muri rusange “avansi yo gutangira imirimo” iyo ariyo yose cyangwa “avansi yahawe uwegukanye isoko” iryo ariryo ryose, ikumvikanisha ko imirimo y’ubwubatsi iyivugwamo ari urugero rwatanzwe, bityo ibyo Me Byiringiro Bajeni avuga ko ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, agace ka 2, y’Itegeko No37/2012 ryo ku wa 09/11/2012 rimaze kuvugwa yaje gusonera umusoro kuri avansi yahawe abubatsi gusa bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [22] Urukiko rurasanga na none, hashingiwe ku byasobanuwe hejuru, “avance de démarrage” atari ubwishyu ku buryo yafatwa nk’umusaruro wabonywe na sosiyete utegangwa mu ngingo ya 37 y’Itegeko No16/2005 ryo ku wa 18/08/2005 ryavuzwe hejuru, kuko isubizwa uwatanze isoko kugirango arekure ingwate yahawe, bityo ikaba idakwiye kubarirwa mu mafaranga acibwaho umusoro ku nyungu. 73 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 99

II.2 Kumenya ingano y’urwunguko rukwiye guciribwaho ibihano byo kutiyandikisha mu basora umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. [23] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko FCVG Ltd yaciwe ibihano byo kutiyandikisha mu basora umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuri 100.000.000Frw nyamara Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyemera ko ayo mafaranga akubiyemo « avance de démarrage » ya 6.506.528Frw FCVG Ltd yahawe ku wa 06/01/2012, hakaba n’andi 46.159.182Frw yahawe kuwa 13/04/2012 icyo Kigo kitemera ariko MINAGRI ihamya mu rwandiko rwayo rwo ku wa 09/09/2016 ko nayo ari « avance de démarrage » yatanzwe ku isoko rya GATSIBO-8 kandi ko yayasubijwe, bivuze ko mu gihe aya 52.665.710Frw ari« avance de démarrage» kandi ikaba idacibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro, ayo mafaranga adakwiye gushyirwa mu gicuruzo giherwaho FCVG Ltd ihanirwa gutinda kwiyandikisha mu basora umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko byaba bisobanuye ko yahanishijwe ihazabu ya 100% aho kuba iya 50% iteganywa n’ingingo ya 63, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha. [24] Me Byiringiro Bajeni avuga ko FCVG Ltd nayo yemera ko nta cyabuzaga ko icibwa ihazabu iteganywa n’ingingo ya 63, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha mu gihe yari igejeje kuri “chiffre d’affaires” ya 20.000.000Frw ntiyiyandikishe mu basora umusoro ku nyongeragaciro mu gihe cy’iminsi irindwi (7). Asobanura ko 46.159.182Frw atari “avance de démarrage” kuko yakorewe fagitire no1-03/03/2012 yo ku wa 26/3/2012 yishyurwa ku wa 3/4/2012, acibwaho na 3% kuko ryari isoko rya Leta, anacibwaho umusoro ufatirwa wa 15% nk’amafaranga yishyuwe ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 74

## Page 100

serivisi akaba ari nako byagenze kuri 6.506.528Frw yakorewe fagitire ku wa 6/12/2011, yishyurwa ku wa 6/1/2012, akaba asanga amafaranga yagiye asorerwa imisoro itandukanye ndetse iyo misoro igakurwa mu gicuruzo gikosoye, atafatwa nka “avance de démarrage” uretse ko niyo yaba ariyo bitabuza ko acibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko imirimo FCVG Ltd ikora itarebana n’ubwubatsi busanzwe busonewe umusoro kuri “avance de démarrage”. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [25] Ingingo ya 10, igika cya mbere, y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “Umuntu wese utangiye igikorwa cy’ubucuruzi cyangwa ibikorwa bishobora gusoreshwa agomba kwiyandikisha mu Buyobozi bw’Imisoro mu gihe kitarenze iminsi irindwi (7) kuva atangiye igikorwa cyo gucuruza cyangwa atangiye isosiyete.” Naho igika cya 2 cy’iyo ngingo kikavuga ko “Umuntu wese wakoze ibikorwa bisoreshwa birenze amafaranga y’u Rwanda angana na miliyoni makumyabiri (20.000.000Frw) y’ibyacurujwe mu gihe cy’umwaka usanzwe warangiye cyangwa angana n’amafaranga y’u Rwanda miliyoni eshanu (5.000.000Frw) mu gihembwe kirangiye, agomba kwiyandikisha ku musoro ku nyongeragaciro mu buyobozi bw’imisoro mu gihe kitarenze iminsi irindwi (7) y’irangira ry’umwaka cyangwa ry’igihembwe byavuzwe haruguru.” [26] Ingingo ya 60, igika cya mbere, agace ka 7° y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu, iteganya ko “Umusoreshwa cyangwa undi muntu wese acibwa 75 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 101

ihazabu iyo ananiwe kwiyandikisha nk’uko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 10.” Naho Ingingo ya 63, agace ka mbere, y’iri Tegeko ikavuga ko “amahazabu akurikira acibwa abatarubahirije ibirebana n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro : 1) igihe uwakoze ubucuruzi atiyandikishije ku musoro ku nyongeragaciro, kandi yarabisabwaga, acibwa ihazabu ingana na mirongo itanu ku ijana (50%) by’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro yagombaga kwishyura mu gihe cyose yakoze ubwo bucuruzi » . [27] Muri dosiye y’urubanza harimo inyandiko yitwa “Facture no 01- 03/03/2012” igaragaza ko ku wa 26/03/2012, FCVG Ltd yishyuje 46.159.240Frw nka « avance de démarrage » kuri site ya Gatsibo-8, ayo mafaranga yishyurwa hakoreshejwe sheki yahawe FCVG Ltd ku wa 03/04/2012, MINAGRI ikaba yaremeye mu ibaruwa yanditse ku wa 09/09/2016 ko ayo mafaranga yari aya “avance de démarrage” [28] Muri dosiye harimo na none inyandiko yitwa “facture no2-06/12/2011” yakozwe ku wa 06/12/2011 yishyuza igice cya kabiri cya avansi yo gutangira imirimo ingana na 6.506.528Frw, kijyanye na Nzeri 2011 - Gashyantare 2012, ayo mafaranga akaba yarishyuwe hakoreshejwe sheki ku wa 06/01/2012, imbonerahamwe yishyuriweho ikaba nta na hamwe igaragaza ko haba harabariwemo umusoro ku nyongeragaciro. [29] Urukiko rurasanga Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyemera ko 6.506.528Frw yatanzwe nka « avance de démarrage », byongeye kandi inyandiko zigize dosiye zikaba zigaragaza ko 46.159.182Frw nayo yatanzwe muri urwo rwego, MINAGRI ikaba ishimangira mu ibaruwa yayo yo ku wa 09/09/2016 ko ayo 46.159.182Frw yayashubijwe yose ariyo mpamvu yemeye kurekura ingwate yari yatanzwe na FCVG Ltd muri SONARWA S.A., bityo hakaba nta gushidikanya guhari ko aya ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 76

## Page 102

52.665.710Frw (6.506.528Frw + 46.159.182Frw) yari amafaranga yatanzwe na MINAGRI nka « avance de démarrage» kandi ikaba yarayasubijwe. [30] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko byasobanuwe hejuru « avance de démarrage » idacibwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kuko ari amafaranga uwatsindiye isoko asubiza uwarimuhaye kugirango uyu arekure ingwate yari yahawe, bivuze ko atari mu gicuruzo cyangwa mu rwunguko rw’uwahawe isoko, bityo akaba ataherwaho mu kubara ingano y’igihano cya 50% y’ihazabu icibwa umucuruzi utiyandikishije mu basora umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kandi yabisabwaga n’Itegeko. [31] Urukiko rurasanga, hashingiwe ku bimaze gusobanurwa mu gika kibanza, 99.004.711Frw yahereweho FCVG Ltd icibwa igihano cy’ihazabu cya 50% kubera kutiyandikisha mu batanga uwo musoro ku gihe, agomba kuvanwamo 52.665.710Frw kuko aya yari « avance de démarrage » yasubijwe MINAGRI yari yatanze isoko. II.3 Kumenya ingano y’urwunguko rukwiye kubarirwaho umusoro ku nyungu. [32] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko ibaruramari rya FCVG Ltd ritakoraga koko mu buryo buteganywa n’amategeko, ariyo mpamvu yemera ko yagombaga gusoreshwa hashingiwe ku ihame rya “comparaison des contribuables”, FCVG Ltd ikagereranywa n’abakora imirimo nk’iyayo, ariko ko batamenye aho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro cyakuye umusoreshwa ukora imirimo nk’iya FCVG Ltd wungutse 21% kuko batigeze bamumenyeshwa, uwo bazi akaba ari uwitwa COCOASTER Ltd, bakora imirimo imwe kandi wasoreshejwe ku rwunguko rwa 3%, 77 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 103

akaba asaba ko umusoro ku nyungu FCVG Ltd yishyuzwa wabarirwa kuri urwo rwunguko rwa 3%. [33] Me Byiringiro Bajeni avuga ko FCVG Ltd itigeze ikora ibaruramari cyangwa ngo igaragaze ibitabo byayo by’ubucuruzi ngo bihuzwe n’imenyekanishamusoro yakoze, byumvikanisha ko nta wundi musoreshwa bari kugereranywa, na COCOASTER ivuga ko bakwiye kugereranywa bakaba barasanze hari COCOASTER icuruza nka sosiyete kandi ikaba yarafunze muri 2014 na COCOASTER ya koperative mu by’ubuhinzi n’ubworozi ikora ibijyanye no gutegura za « terrasse », bivuze ko badakora bimwe. Asobanura ko aribyo byatumye FCVG Ltd isoreshwa nta nteguza, umusoresha asanga yaravuze mu imenyekanishamusoro ko yacuruje 34.105.600Frw yunguka 7.809.700Frw bihwanye n’urwunguko rwa 23% naho muri « historique bancaire » avuga ko yungutse 21%, ariyo mpamvu yasoreshejwe ku rwunguko rugereranyije (moyenne) rwa 21%, bityo akaba asanga ntaho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakosheje rwemeza ko FCVG Ltd isoreshwa ku rwunguko rwa 21%. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [34] Ingingo ya 45, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya ko umusoreshwa asabwa ibimenyetso iyo: 1o Ubuyobozi bw’Imisoro bwakoze isoresha nta nteguza. [35] Dosiye y’urubanza igaragaza ko FCVG Ltd yaciwe umusoro ku nyungu wa 2.849.742Frw ku mwaka wa 2011, uwa 16.988.112Frw ku mwaka wa 2012 n’uwa 12.394.551Frw ku mwaka wa 2013, imenyeshwa n’abagenzuzi ko itazasoreshwa ku ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 78

## Page 104

rwunguko rwa 3% kuko itashoboye kurugaragariza ibimenyetso, ijuririra kwa Komseri Mukuru ivuga ko yagize urwunguko rusange (marge beneficiaire brut) rwa 20% ariko iyo havuyemo ubwishingizi, imishahara, imisoro, ubwicungure, inyungu z’umwenda hasigara urwunguko rwa 3%. Mu ibaruwa ye yo ku wa 17/09/2015, Komiseri Mukuru yasanze FCVG Ltd itagaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo ivuga, yemeza ko ubujurire bwayo nta shingiro bufite. [36] Urukiko rurasanga FCVG Ltd yemeranywa n’umusoresha ko ibaruramari ryayo ritari ryujuje ibisabwa n’amategeko, isoreshwa nta nteguza (taxation d’office), bivuze ko, hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 45, agace ka mbere, y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru, ariyo ifite inshingano yo kugaragaza ko koko urwunguko umusoresha yafatiyeho ayisoresha atari rwo, na nubu ikaba itagaragaza icyo ishingiraho ivuga ko igomba gusoreshwa ku rwunguko rwa 3% kuko itabasha kugaragaza ibyo yacuruje ngo nivanamo ibyatunze umwuga hasigare urwo rwunguko rwa 3%, bityo ibyo ivuga ko igomba gusoreshwa ku rwunguko rwa 3% bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [37] Urukiko rurasanga kandi FCVG Ltd itarabashije kurugaragariza ko urwunguko ntarengwa rw’uwitwa COCOASTER Ltd yigereranya nawe ari 3% ahubwo Me Nsengiyumva Abel uyiburanira avuga ko batashoboye kubona ibitabo by’ibaruramari bya COCOASTER byemewe, Ubuyobozi bw’Imisoro nabwo bukaba buvuga ko butashoboye kubona amakuru y’ibaruramari rya COCOASTER ikora nka koperative ku buryo yashingirwaho hemezwa ko urwunguko ntarengwa rw’abakora ibijyanye no gutunganya za « terrasse » ari 3%, kubera izo mpamvu, uru Rukiko rukaba ntaho rwahera rwemeza 79 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 105

ko ayo FCVG Ltd yungutse ari 3% aho kuba 21% agaragara mu menyekanishamusoro yikoreye no muri « historique bancaire » yayo, bityo ingano y’urwunguko ikwiye kubarirwaho umusoro ku nyungu ikaba ari 21%. II.4 Kumenya niba FCVG Ltd yaranyereje umusoro bigatuma yacibwa ibihano. [38] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko ibihano FCVG Ltd ikwiye ari ibya 50% byo kutiyandikisha mu batanga umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ku gihe, ariko ko umusoresha yayiciye n’ihazabu ya 100% yo kunyereza umusoro bitewe n’uko hari abahakanye inyemezabuguzi z’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro bayihaye muri 2012, nyamara ari ibisanzwe ko abazitanze bazihakana kuko baba batarazimenyekanishije. Asobanura ko ikibazo cyasuzumwe mu buryo butaribwo kuko hari gusuzumwa nimero z’izo nyemezabuguzi n’uwazitanze, bigakorwa ku mwaka wa 2012 gusa hashingiwe ku ihame ry’uko buri mwaka w’isoresha wigenga (indépendance de l’exercice fiscal), haba hari amakosa ibihano ntibirenge uwo mwaka. [39] Me Byiringiro Bajeni avuga ko ibyo FCVG LTD iburanisha ko igomba gucibwa ibihano bya 50% kubera kunyereza umusoro nta shingiro bifite kubera ko igenzura ryagaragaje ko yamenyekanishije ibyatunze umwuga n’umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ku kiranguzo bitabayeho igamije kunyereza umusoro ku myaka ya 2011, 2012 na 2013, ibi bikaba bigaragazwa n’uko hari abavuze ko ntacyo bayigurishije, ari nacyo cyatumye Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwemeza mu bika bya 11, 14 na 15 ko ihazabu ya 100% iteganywa n’ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha yari ifite ishingiro. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 80

## Page 106

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [40] Ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu iteganya ko umusoreshwa wanyereje umusoro ahanishwa ihazabu ingana n’ijana ku ijana (100%) by’umusoro yanyereje. [41] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo amabaruwa y’abacuruzi (UPROTUR, RUTA Trading Company Ltd, Gasangwa Vianney, S.R.D.S. Ltd) bandikiye Komiseri Mukuru w’Ishami rishinzwe kurwanya magendu bose bemeza ko nta bicuruzwa bagurishije FCVG Ltd mu myaka ya 2011, 2012 na 2013. Dosiye igaragaza kandi ko FCVG Ltd yamenyeshejwe n’abagenzuzi ko icyatumye icibwa ibihano bya 100% ari uko yamenyekanishije inyemezabuguzi ku musoro ku nyongeragaciro zitavugisha ukuri, kandi yo ubwayo ikaba yarivugiye ko nta bimenyetso ifite by’ibyo ivuga ko byatunze umwuga, ijuririye ibyo bihano kwa Komiseri Mukuru, nawe asanga itagaragaza ibimenyetso by’ibyo yavugaga ahubwo yaranyereje umusoro ibigambiriye (cotes 8 na 13). [42] Urukiko rurasanga inyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza zigaragaza ko FCVG Ltd ivuga ko hari ibicuruzwa yaguze ibicibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro igomba gusubizwa nyamara abo ivuga ko yabiguze nabo babihakana, hakiyongeraho kuba idatanga ibimenyetso by’ibyo ivuga ko byatunze umwuga bikwiye kuvanwa mu byo yacuruje, byumvikanisha ko icyo yari igamije ari ugusubizwa umusoro ku nyongeragaciro kandi nta kigaragaza ko yawutanze ndetse igashaka no gutubya ingano y’ibyo yacuruje ivanamo ibyatunze umwuga itagaragariza 81 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 107

ibimenyetso, ibi byose bikaba ari uburyo bwo kunyereza umusoro. [43] Urukiko rurasanga mu gihe hari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko FCVG Ltd yakoze imenyekanishamusoro igamije no kuwunyereza, igomba kubihanirwa icibwa ihazabu ingana n’ijana ku ijana (100%) by’umusoro yanyereje nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 64 y’Itegeko No 25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha nk’uko ryahinduwe kandi ryujujwe kugeza ubu. II.5 Kumenya niba FCVG Ltd yahabwa indishyi isaba. [44] Me Nsengiyumva Abel avuga ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kigomba guha FCVG Ltd amafaranga miliyoni eshatu (3.000.000Frw) yishyuye Avoka wayiburaniye. [45] Me Byiringiro Bajeni avuga ko indishyi FCVG Ltd isaba nta shingiro zifite, ko ahubwo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gikwiye guhabwa indishyi z’ikurikiranarubanza zigenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko hashingiwe ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [46] Urukiko rurasanga FCVG Ltd n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, buri wese kubimureba, hari ibyo atsindiwe, bityo muri uru rubanza, hakaba ntawavuga ko yashowe mu manza nta mpamvu, aricyo gituma amafaranga y’igihembo cya Avoka FCVG Ltd isaba ndetse n’amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro gisaba ntayo bakwiriye. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 82

## Page 108

III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [47] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [48] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RCOMA00184/2016/CHC/HCC rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ku wa 29/07/2016 ihindutse kuri bimwe; [49] Rwemeje ko avance de démarrage ingana na 90.876.520Frw itagomba gucibwaho umusoro ku nyongeragaciro; [50] Rwemeje ko avance de démarrage ingana na 90.876.520Frw itagomba gucibwaho umusoro ku nyungu; [51] Rwemeje ko 99.004.711Frw yahereweho Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd icibwa igihano cy’ihazabu cya 50% kubera kutiyandikisha mu batanga umusoro ku nyongeragaciro ku gihe, agomba kuvanwamo 52.665.710 Frw kuko yari « avance de démarrage » yasubijwe MINAGRI yari yatanze isoko; [52] Rwemeje ko ingano y’urwunguko igomba kubarirwaho umusoro ku nyungu ari 21%; [53] Rwemeje ko Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd ikwiye guhanishwa ihazabu ingana n’ijana ku ijana (100%) ry’umusoro yanyereje; [54] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro na Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd gufatanya gutanga amagarama y’urubanza angana n’ibihumbi ijana (100.000Frw). 83 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 110

MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RCOMAA00040/2016/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gakwaya na Karimunda, J.) 22 Ukuboza 2017] Amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete – Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete bwemezwa gusa n’urukiko iyo hari impamvu, icyo gihe urukiko rwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzima gatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwa banyirayo kugirango baryozwe ibikorwa bya sosiyete nkaho ari ibyabo – Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ingingo ya 95. Amategeko agenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi – Uburyozwe – Gufatira umutungo w’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete hagamijwe kuwugurisha – Gufatira imitungo y’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete nta cyemezo cy’urukiko kigaragaza uburyozwe bwabo mu gutuma itishyura imisoro yaciwe, n’ ukwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzimagatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwabayozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bayo – Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ingingo ya 95 – Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 46 bis. Incamake y’ikibazo: Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyafatiriye imitungo itimukanwa y’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete Quincaillerie du Nil mu rwego rwo kwishyura umusoro icyo kigo cyishyuzaga iyo sosiyete, ibyo bituma abo banyamigabane 85

## Page 111

barega Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro mu Rukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge bavuga ko cyatandukiriye gifatira imitungo yabo bwite kandi ubusanzwe umuyobozi cyangwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete adashobora kuryozwa umusoro iyo bidategetswe n’urukiko, basaba kuvanirwa ho iryo fatiramitungo. Urwo rukiko rwemeje ko iryo fatira ku mitungo itimukanwa y’abanyamigabane rinyuranyije n’amategeko kuko aho gufatira imitungo ya Quincaillerie du Nil hafatiriwe iya banyamigabane bayo, ibyo kandi bigakorwa nta cyemezo cy’urukiko cyemeza uburyozwe bw’abanyamigabane bayo. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro nticyishimiye icyo cyemezo maze rukijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi ivuga ko itegeko rirebana n’imitunganyirize yisoresha ridateganya ko habanza kwemezwa uburyozwe bw’umuyobozi cyangwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete kugira ngo ibikorwa byo kwishyuza umusoro bibone gukorwa. Urukiko rwemeza ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyari ifite uburenganzira bwo gufatira imitungo y’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete Quincaillerie du Nil mbere yuko urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwemeza uruhare rwabo mu kutishyura imisoro. Abanyamigabane ba Quincaillerie du Nil ntibanyuzwe n’icyo cyemezo cy’urukiko maze bajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga bavuga ko imitungo yabo yafatiriwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko kuko byakozwe nta cyemezo cy’urukiko kibitegetse, bavuga kandi ko imitungo yabo bwite itandukanye n’imitungo ya sosiyete babereye abanyamigabane, basaba uru rukiko gusuzuma niba ifatira ry’imitungo itari ya nyiri gucibwa imisoro ryemewe mbere yuko urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwemeza uburyozwe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 86

## Page 112

Mu kwiregura, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kivuga ko imitungo yafatiriwe itatejwe cyamunara kandi ko ifatira ry’umutungo w’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete itarujuje inshingano zayo zo kwishyura umusoro bitewe n’uburangare cyangwa imicungire n’imikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo, riba rigamije gukumira ihinduranyamitungo (mutation) kuko bitabaye umutungo wari kuzavamo umusoro waciwe, wanyerezwa maze umusoro ukabura. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete bwemezwa gusa n’urukiko, icyo gihe urukiko rwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzima gatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwa banyirayo kugirango baryozwe ibikorwa bya sosiyete nkaho ari ibyabo. 2. Gufatira imitungo y’abanyamigabane n’abayobozi ba sosiyete mbere yo kugaragaza uburyozwe bwabo mu gutuma itishyura imisoro yaciwe, n’ukwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzimagatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwabayozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bayo. Ibi bikaba byatuma abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane baryozwa ibikorwa bya sosiyete nkaho ari ibyabo igihe icyo aricyo cyose n’uwo ari ariwe wese. Bityo, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro nticyari cyemerewe gufatira imitungo ya Munyampundu na Mukarugambwa mbere y’icyemezo cy’Urukiko kigaragaza uburyozwe bwabo mu gutuma Quinquallerie du Nil Ltd babereye abanyambigabane itishyura imisoro. Ubujurire bufite ishingiro. Ifatira riteshejwe agaciro. Amagarama y’urubanza aherereye kuregwa. 87 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 113

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi, ingingo ya 95, igika cya 5. Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo, ingingo ya 198 n’iya 248. Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, ingingo ya 46 bis n’iya 48. Imanza zifashishijwe: Twagiramungu v. Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, RCOMAA0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA 0061/16/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 14/07/211. Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL, AGC (Investments) Limited v Commissioner of Taxation, Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyaciye Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd umusoro ungana na 654.158.102Frw. Quincallerie du Nil Ltd ntiyanyuzwe n’icyo cyemezo, yiyambaza inzira zose ziteganywa n’amategeko harimo n’Inkiko isaba ivanwaho ry’umusoro yaciwe. Ku rwego rwa nyuma, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwaciye urubanza RCOMA0029/12/CS, rwemeza ko Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd yishyura umusoro yaciwe. [2] Mu rwego rwo kwishyuza umusoro wari umaze kugera kuri 1.031.615.726Frw, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyafatiriye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 88

## Page 114

umutungo utimukanwa wa Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice kuko ari abanyamigabane ba Quincallerie du Nil Ltd. Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice baregeye Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi bavuga ko aho kugirango Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gishake ubwishyu mu mutungo wa Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd yaciwe umusoro, cyatandukiriye, gifatira umutungo bwite wabo kandi ataribo bawuciwe, ko ibi binyuranije n’ingingo ya 48 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha kubera ko umuyobozi cyangwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete adashobora kuryozwa umusoro waciwe iyo sosiyete bitategetswe n’Urukiko. [3] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwaciye urubanza RCOM0805/15/TC/NYGE-RCOM0778/15/TC/NYGE rusanga ifatira ryakozwe ku mitungo itimukanwa iri mu bibanza N°1070, 180, 1271 na 179 rinyuranije n’amategeko kuko mu mwanya wo gufatira imitungo ya Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd hafatiriwe iya Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice, bikorwa urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rutemeje uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane bayo nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha. [4] Urukiko rw’Ubucuruzi rwa Nyarugenge rwasanze kandi ibyo ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahôro cyaburanishaga ko hakwemezwa uruhare n’uburyozwe bya Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice mu gutuma Quincallerie du Nil Ltd itubahiriza inshingano zayo kuko aribo bayobozi n’abanyamigabane bayo nta shingiro bifite kuko babisabye nyuma yo gufatira imitungo bwite yabo. 89 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 115

[5] Ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahôro nticyishimiye icyo cyemezo, ikijuririra mu Rukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi kivuga ko ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ntaho iteganya ko habanza kwemezwa uburyozwe bw’umuyobozi cyangwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete kugira ngo ibikorwa byo kwishyuza umusoro bibone gukorwa, ahubwo ko umusoresha afite uburenganzira bwo kubishyuza bose mu gihe abona baragize uburangare cyangwa ubushake buke byatumye sosiyete itishyura imisoro yaciwe, havuka impaka, bakaregera Urukiko kugirango rwemeze uburyozwe cyangwa bukurweho. [6] Mu rubanza RCOMA0024/16/HCC rwaciwe kuwa 15/04/2016, Urukiko rwasanze ikibazo ababuranyi batumvikanaho ari ukumenya niba ari ngombwa kubanza kuregera urukiko kugira ngo rwemeze uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete mbere y’uko imitungo yabo ifatirwa hagamijwe kwishyurira sosiyete imisoro, rusesenguye ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha, rusanga ntaho ivuga ko nta fatira rikorwa ku mitungo y’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete mbere y’uko Urukiko rwemeza uburyozwe bwabo kuko ifatira rikorwa mbere y’igurisha kugira ngo imitungo itarigiswa mbere y’icyemezo cy’Urukiko cyemeza uburyozwe bwa ba nyirayo. [7] Urukiko rwemeje ko ikigo cy’imisoro n’amahôro cyari gifite uburenganzira bwo gufatira imitungo itimukanwa ya Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugamba Béatrice, abanyamigabane ba Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, mbere y’uko urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwemeza ko bagize uruhare mu ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 90

## Page 116

kutishyura imisoro ya sosiyete, ni uko rwemeza ko imikirize y’urubanza rwajuririwe ihindutse. [8] Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice ntibishimiye icyo cyemezo bajurira mu Rukiko rw’Ikirenga basaba ko hasuzumwa ikibazo cyo kumenya niba ifatira ry’umutungo utari uwa nyiri gucibwa umusoro ryemewe mbere y’uko urukiko rubyemeza kuko basanga ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha itavuga mu buryo bweruye niba ifatira ry’umutungo w’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete yaciwe umusoro rikorwa mbere cyangwa nyuma y’icyemezo cy’Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha kigaragaza uburyozwe bwabo, nubwo bo basanga kwemeza uburyozwe aribyo byari bikwiye kubanziriza ifatira bitewe n’uko ifatira rikorwa kugirango umutungo uzagurishwe havemo ubwishyu. [9] Iburanisha ry’urubanza ryashyizwe kuwa 16/05/2017, uwo munsi ntirwaburanishwa kuko uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro yari mu butumwa. Urubanza rwagiye rwimurirwa ku matariki anyuranye bitewe n’impamvu zitandukanye, rwimurirwa bwa nyuma kuwa 21/11/2017. Uwo munsi iburanisha ribera mu ruhame, Mukarugambwa Béatrice ahagarariwe na Me Ndayisabye Alex, Munyampundu Antoine aburanirwa na Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph naho Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, kiburanirwa na Me Gatera Jean Clément na Me Twahirwa Jean-Baptiste.

91 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 117

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO. II.1. Kumenya niba ifatira y’umutungo wa Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice ryarakozwe mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. [10] Me Ndayisabye Alex avuga ko imitungo ya Mukarugambwa Béatrice yafatiriwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko bitewe n’uko byakozwe nta cyemezo cy’Urukiko kibitegetse nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha. Asobanura ko Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwakoreye iyo ngingo isesengura ritari ryo kuko rwavuze ko nta kigaragaza ko ifatira ryari gukurikirwa n’igurisha, ruraryemeza nyamara icyatumye imitungo itagurishwa ari uko batanze ikirego cyihutirwa gihagarika igurisha, ko Urukiko rwivuguruje kuko nyuma yo kwemeza ifatira, rwavuze ko ikirego cy’uburyozwe kitagombaga kwakirwa, hakibazwa icyo ifatira ryari gushingiraho. Avuga ko gufatira umutungo w’umuntu ku mpamvu z’umusoro bibanzirizwa no kubanza kugaragaza ko ari umusoreshwa, ko ibyo aribyo biteganywa n’ingingo ya 48 y’Itegeko rimaze kuvugwa, kubikora hatabanje kugaragazwa ko nyiri umutungo ari umusoreshwa ari ukuvogera umutungo we bwite, ibyo bikaba bibujijwe n’ingingo ya 34 y’Itegeko-Nshinga ryo mu 2003 ryavuguruwe mu 20151, binyuranye n’ihame ry’amategeko rya “piercing corporate veil” ndetse bihabanye

1 “Buri muntu afite uburenganzira ku mutungo bwite waba uwe ku giti cye cyangwa uwo asangiye n’abandi. Umutungo w’umuntu ku giti cye cyangwa uwo asangiye n’abandi ntuvogerwa. Uburenganzira ku mutungo ntibuhungabanywa keretse ku mpamvu z’inyungu rusange kandi hakurikijwe ibiteganywa n’amategeko.” ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 92

## Page 118

n’ibyemezo by’Inkiko zo mu bindi bihugu nko mu Bwongereza aho mu rubanza rwa Solomon v. Solomon2, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwavuze ko umutungo bwite w’umuryango cyangwa w’umuntu ku giti cye utakwitiranwa n’umutungo wa sosiyete, ariyo mpamvu asaba uru Rukiko guhindura urubanza rujuririrwa. [11] Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph uburanira Munyampundu Antoine avuga ko umusoro wishyuzwa Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, ikaba ifite umutungo wayo utandukanye n’uwa Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice. Avuga ko ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha yaje muri 2013 igamije gukumira inyereza ry’umusoro ryakorwa n’abasangiye umutungo na sosiyete, ariko ishyiraho urubibi rw’uko uburyozwe bugomba kwemezwa n’Urukiko, iyo ngingo ikaba igomba gusomerwa hamwe n’iya 48 y’iryo Tegeko ivuga ko ifatira rikurikiza amategeko asanzwe (droit commun), naho ingingo ya 223 y’ Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi ikaba iteganya uburyo ifatira ry’agateganyo rikorwa, izi ngingo zikaba zihuriza ku kuba ifatira ry’agateganyo riba rigamije gushinganisha ibyafatiriwe, hategerejwe urubanza ruzarihinduramo ifatira-bwishyu. Asobanura ko aha ariho Urukiko Rukuru rw’Ubucuruzi rwitiranyije ibintu, ruvuga ko hakozwe ifatira ry’agateganyo nyamara dosiye igaragaza ko nyuma y’ifatira, umusoresha yahise ashyiraho amatariki y’igurisha, ibyo bikaba bitari gukorwa nta cyemezo cy’Urukiko kigaragaza uburyozwe bw’aba nyiri umutungo.

2 Solom v. Solomon & Co [1897] AC 22. 93 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 119

[12] Me Gatera Jean Clément, uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, avuga ko ifatira ry’umutungo w’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete itarujuje inshingano zayo zo kwishyura umusoro, bitewe n’uburangare cyangwa imicungire n’imikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo, riba rigamije gukumira ihinduranyamitungo (mutation) kuko bitabaye umutungo wari kuzavamo umusoro waciwe, wanyerezwa. Asobanura ko ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru itanga inzira yo gufatira iyo mitungo nta zindi manza zibayeho kuko umushingamategeko yasanze habanje imanza, umutungo wahishwa cyangwa ukarigiswa, aricyo kigaragaza ko nta burenganzira ku mutungo bwavogerewe. Avuga ko iyo mitungo itatejwe cyamunara kandi ko ba nyirayo badahakana ko ari abanyamigabane ba Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd yishyuzwa imisoro yatumye ifatira rikorwa, ariyo mpamvu asanga ntaho umusoresha yanyuranije n’ingingo ya 48 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru. [13] Me Twahirwa Jean-Baptiste nawe uburanira Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, avuga ko icyo Kigo aricyo gifite inshingano zo kwishyuza umusoro, akaba asanga kitari gutanga ikirego cyemeza uburyozwe bw’abanyamigabane ba sosiyete kandi hari ikirego cyatanzwe na Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice. Asobanura ko ifatira ryari rigamije gukumira ko imitungo inyerezwa umusoro ukazabura, kuko gutegereza imanza bishobora kurangira imitungo yarikuvamo ubwishyu irigishijwe.

ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 94

## Page 120

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [14] Ingingo ya 198 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko inyandikompesha ari imanza zaciwe n’inkiko, ibyemezo by’abacamanza, imanza z’inkiko nkemurampaka, inyandikomvaho zirimo ingingo zemerera uberewemo umwenda kugurisha icyagwatirijwe bitagombye urubanza, inyandiko z’amasezerano yerekeranye n’amasoko ya Leta, inyandikomvaho n’imanza z’inkiko zo mu mahanga abacamanza bo mu Rwanda babifitiye ububasha bemeye ko ziharangirizwa. [15] Ingingo ya 248 y’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi iteganya ko uberewemo umwenda ntashobora gufatira ibintu bitimukanwa by’uwumubereyemo, adashingiye ku nyandiko zivugwa mu ngingo 198 y’iri tegeko. [16] Ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ivuga ko abayobozi bafite uruhare mu buryo butaziguye mu igenzura no mu micungire y’isosiyete idahamagarira rubanda kuyiguramo imigabane, baryozwa bose hamwe imisoro iyo sosiyete ibazwa, iyo bigaragaye ko ku bushake cyangwa ku burangare bwabo batumye isosiyete iryozwa iyo misoro. Abanyamigabane na bo baryozwa imisoro y’isosiyete iyo bafite uruhare mu micungire y’isosiyete cyangwa mu mikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo ku buryo bituma idashobora kuzuza inshingano zijyanye n’imisoro. Urukiko rubifitiye ububasha rwemeza uburyozwe bw’abayobozi n’abanyamigabane buvugwa muri iyi ngingo. 95 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 121

[17] Ingingo ya 48 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha ivuga ko iyo umusoro utishyuwe mi minsi cumi n’itanu (15) nk’uko bivugwa mu ngingo ya 46 y’iri tegeko, ibiro by’imisoro bishobora gufatira umutungo w’umusoreshwa, waba uwimukanwa cyangwa utimukanwa, waba uri mu maboko y’umusoreshwa cyangwa undi muntu. Ibyafatiriwe bitezwa cyamunara nyuma y’iminsi umunani (8) umusoreshwa amenyeshejwe inyandiko y’ifatira (…..). Gufatira no guteza cyamunara umutungo wafatiriwe bikurikiza amategeko y’imbonezamubano n’ubucuruzi. Ku birebana n’isoresha, abahesha b’inkiko bo mu buyobozi bw’imisoro banganya ububasha n’abahesha b’inkiko bigenga. [18] Inyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza zigaragaza ko Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice babereye abanyamigabane, yaciwe umusoro ungana na 654.158.102Frw. Muri dosiye harimo kandi icyemezo cy’Umubitsi Wungirije w’Impapurompamo z’Ubutaka cyo kuwa 12/01/2015 gihamya ko ubutaka buri mu bibanza n°1175, n°1165 na n°2292 biherereye mu Murenge wa Kinyinya, Akagari ka Gasharu, ikibanza n°1070 giherereye mu Murenge wa Kimihurura, Akagari ka Kamukina hamwe n’ibibanza n°180 na n°1271 biherereye mu Murenge wa Gahanga, Akagari ka Gahanga byanditse kuri Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice kandi byashyizweho itambamira ku ihererekanyamutungo iryo ariryo ryose (cote 10). [19] Dosiye y’urubanza irimo na none inyandiko-mvugo y’ifatira (procès verbal de saisie) yo kuwa 10/03/2011 y’inyubako za Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice ziherereye Kacyiru, mu Mujyi wa Kigali kubera umwenda w’umusoro Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, babereye ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 96

## Page 122

abanyamigabane, ibereyemo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, harimo kandi ibaruwa N°94/RRA/DTD/SMTO/TAMD/15 ya Mukakalisa Francine, Umuhesha w’Inkiko mu Buyobozi bw’Imisoro, amenyesha Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice ko afatiriye umutungo wabo w’inzu iri mu kibanza kibaruwe kuri N°UPI 1/02/08/01/1070 mu Mudugudu wa Nyenyeri, Akagari ka Kamukina, Umurenge wa Kimihurura, Akarere ka Gasabo kubera kutishyura umusoro ungana na 654.158.102Frw babereyemo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro, ko nyuma y’iminsi umunani (8), uwo mwenda utishyuwe, inzu izatezwa cyamunara (cotes 6 na 9). [20] Dosiye irimo kandi ibaruwa ya Me Hakizimana John mu izina rya Munyampundu Antoine yo kuwa 02/06/2011 isaba Komiseri Mukuru gukuraho ifatira ryakorewe inyubako iri mu kibanza no1084 Kacyiru-Nord, niyo Me Ndayisabye Alex, mu izina rya Mukarugambwa Béatrice, yandikiye Mukakalisa Francine kuwa 01/03/2015 amumenyesha ko inzu yafatiriye atari iya Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, ahubwo ari iya Mukarugambwa Béatrice na Munyampundu Antoine, kandi ko ariyo batuyemo (cotes 11 na 13). [21] Urukiko rurasanga Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gishingira ifatira ry’imitungo ya Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice, abanyamigabane ba Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd ku kuba itaboneka ngo yishyure imisoro yaciwe, ko iryo fatira rigamije kuburizamo irigiswa ry’iyo mitungo, ko kandi kubura kw’iyo sosiyete, gukwiye gufatwa nk’imicungire mibi cyangwa imikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo, byatumye itabasha kuzuza inshingano zayo zo kwishyura umusoro yaciwe. [22] Urukiko rurasanga inyandiko isoresha (note d’imposition) yarakorewe Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, ifite umutungo 97 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 123

utandukanye n’uw’abanyamigabane bayo aribo Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice, iyo nyandiko kandi ikaba igira ingaruka k’uwo yakorewe, ku bijyanye n’uru rubanza ikaba itashingirwaho hasoreshwa umuyobozi cyangwa umunyamigabane wa sosiyete kuko atari we iba yakorewe. [23] Urukiko rurasanga ingingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya ko impamvu yatuma umuyobozi wa sosiyete aryozwa hamwe na sosiyete (solidairement responsables /jointly liable) imisoro yaciwe sosiyete ari igihe hari icyemezo kigaragaza ko, ku bushake cyangwa ku burangare bwe, yatumye sosiyete itishyura imisoro yari itegetswe kwishyura, naho umunyamigabane agafatanya na sosiyete kwishyura imisoro iyo ari mu bacunga sosiyete cyangwa abagize uruhare mu mikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo bigatuma idashobora kwishyura imisoro yaciwe, ijambo “iyo bigaragaraye (s’il est raisonablement conclu / if it can be reasonably concluded) rikoreshwa ku bayobozi, n’amagambo “iyo bafite uruhare mu micungire ya sosiyete cyangwa mu mikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wayo” akoreshwa ku banyamigabane, Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gishingiraho kivuga ko cyasanze Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice baracunze nabi Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, bari babereye abanyamigabane, ubu ikaba itaboneka, akaba adakwiye gufatwa yonyine (d’une facon isolée/ in an isolated way) ahubwo akwiye gusomerwa hamwe n’andi ari muri iyo ngingo n’icyo umushingamategeko yari agamije ayishyiraho. [24] Urukiko rurasanga ibikubiye mu ngingo ya 46 bis y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru byumvikanisha ko abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 98

## Page 124

sosiyete badashobora kuryozwa imisoro yaciwe sosiyete, iyo bitagaragaye ko, ku bushake cyangwa ku burangare bw’abayobozi, ku micungire mibi cyangwa imikoreshereze mibi y’umutungo wa sosiyete bikozwe n’abanyamigane, sosiyete yananiwe kwishyura imisoro yaciwe, amakosa cyangwa imicungire mibi byakozwe n’abayobozi cyangwa abanyimigabane byatumye sosiyete itishyura imisoro yemezwa n’Urukiko mu bushishozi bwarwo, ibyo Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kivuga ko bitari ngombwa kubanza kuregera kwemeza uburyozwe bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane, ko ifatira ryakozwe hagamijwe kurinda ko imitungo yarigiswa gusa bikaba nta shingiro bifite. [25] Urukiko rurasanga gufatira umutungo wa Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice hagamije kuwugurisha mbere yo kugaragaza uburyozwe bwabo mu gutuma sosiyete bari babereye abanyamigabane itishyura imisoro yaciwe ari ukwirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzimagatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bayo3, kubyirengagiza bikaba byatuma abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane baryozwa ibikorwa bya sosiyete nkaho ari ibyabo igihe icyo aricyo cyose n’uwo ari ariwe wese, ibi bikaba bitandukanye n’ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 46 bis ndetse n’iya 48 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo ku wa 04/12/2005 ryavuzwe haruguru. [26] Urukiko rurasanga nk’uko rwabyemeje mu manza zitandukanye harimo n’urwo Twagiramungu Venuste yaburanaga n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro, uburyozwe

3 “The legal fiction of corporate veil, thus established, enunciate that a Company has a legal personality separate and independent from the identity of its shareholders.” Reba Murray A. Pickering, the Company as Separate Legal Entity (1968) 31 Mod.L.Rev.481. 99 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 125

bw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane ba sosiyete aribyo byitwa “piercing the corporate veil” cyangwa “lifting the veil of the corporation” ni umwihariko (exception) wemezwa gusa n’Urukiko, rukirengagiza itandukaniro riri hagati y’ubuzimagatozi bwa sosiyete n’ubwa ba nyirayo kugirango abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane baryozwe ibikorwa bya sosiyete nkaho ari ibyabo4, iri hame ry’amategeko ry’uko uburyozwe bwemezwa n’Urukiko rikaba ryaribukijwe mu ngingo ya 95, igika cya 5 cy’Itegeko N°27/2017 ryo kuwa 31/05/2017 rigenga amasosiyete y’ubucuruzi ivuga ko “Urukiko rushobora kurenga uburyozwe bushingiye ku migabane kugirango umunyamigabane aryozwe inshingano za sosiyete iyo rusanze uwo munyamigabane yarakoresheje nabi imiterere ya sosiyete agamije uburiganya cyangwa kwica amategeko cyangwa yarafashe nabi umutungo wa sosiyete nk’aho ari umutungo w’abantu ku giti cyabo.” Cyakora, mu kwemeza uburyozwe, Inkiko zishimangira ko bidapfa gukorwa, ahubwo hagomba gushingirwa ku mpamvu zisobanutse (circumstances in which the corporate veil may be lifted are greatly circumscribed) zigaragaza igituma abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane bagomba kuryozwa ibyakaryojwe sosiyete5, nabyo bishimangira ko gutandukanya ubwo buzimagatozi bitemezwa n’uwo ari we wese cyangwa ngo abikore uko yiboneye, ahubwo ni umwihariko (exception) wemezwa n’Inkiko mu rwego rwo kurengera inyungu runaka zitari kurengerwa Urukiko ruramutse rutemeje

4 “Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the veil of incorporation refers to the judicially imposed exception to the separate legal entity principle, whereby courts disregard the separateness of the corporation and hold a shareholder responsible for the actions of the corporation as if it were the actions of the shareholder.” Reba Munyamahoro Réné, 5 Reba AGC (Investments) Limited v. Commissioner of Taxation, Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443 (HC, Mc Tiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Windeyer and Owen JJ). ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 100

## Page 126

uruhare rw’abayobozi cyangwa abanyamigabane mu gutuma sosiyete itubahiriza inshingano zayo6. [27] Urukiko rurasanga kandi gufatira umutungo hagamijwe kuwugurisha muri cyamunara nta nyandikompesha iriho binyuranyije n’ibiteganwa n’ingingo ya 198 n’iya 284 z’Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo kuwa 14/06/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, nyamara kandi ingingo ya 48 y’Itegeko N°25/2005 ryo kuwa 04/12/2005 rigena imitunganyirize y’isoresha iteganya ko gufatira no guteza cyamunara umutungo wafatiriwe bikurikiza amategeko asanzwe agenga imburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano n’ubucuruzi, byose bigaragaza ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kitari cyemerewe gufatira imitungo ya Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice mbere y’icyemezo cy’Urukiko kigaragaza uburyozwe bwabo mu gutuma Quinquallerie du Nil Ltd babereye abanyamigabane, itishyura imisoro. II.2. Kumenya niba indishyi zisabwa muri uru rubanza zifite ishingiro. [28] Me Gatera Jean Clément avuga ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyashowe mu manza ku bw’amaherere bituma gishaka abakiburanira bateguye kandi bakurikirana iby’uru rubanza aho gukora ibindi, bakaba babisabira igihembo cya avoka cya 2.000.000Frw. [29] Me Ndayisabye Alex avuga ko amafaranga Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro cyaka kitayakwiriye kuko aricyo cyakoze amakosa gifatira imitungo ya Mukarugambwa Béatrice mu buryo bunyuranyije n’amategeko. Avuga ko iryo fatira ryatumye uwo

6 Reba urubanza RCOMAA0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA 0061/16/CS, hagati ya Twagiramungu Vénuste n’Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahoro rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku wa 14/07/2017, igika cya 22. 101 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 127

aburanira agira ibyo atakaza akurikirana umutungo we mu nkiko, ashingiye ku ngingo ya 258 y’Igitabo cya Gatatu cy’urwunge rw’amategeko mbonezamubano, akaba abisabira 1.000.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 2.000.000 Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka. [30] Me Twilingiyemungu Joseph avuga ko Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kitakora amakosa ngo gisabe n’indishyi, akaba asanga Munyampundu Antoine ari we ukwiriye 2.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka kuko yiyambaje umuburanira kugirango agaragaze uburenganzira bwe mu nkiko. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [31] Urukiko rurasanga amafaranga y’ikurikiranarubanza n’igihembo cya Avoka Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro gisaba kitayakwiriye kuko aricyo cyatumye abajuriye bagana inkiko bitewe no kutubahiriza amategeko mbere yo gufatira imitungo yabo. [32] Urukiko rurasanga kuba Mukarugambwa Béatrice yararegeye Urukiko akurikirana umutungo we wafatiriwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko byaratumye agira ibyo atakaza awukurikirana kandi yiyambaza na Avoka uhembwa, bityo akaba agenewe 500.000Frw y’ikurikirarubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka agenwe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko kuko atagaragaza ko ayo asaba ariyo yakoresheje kuri uru rubanza. [33] Urukiko rurasanga kandi Munyampundu Antoine nawe yariyambaje Avoka uhembwa kugirango agaruze umutungo we wari warafatiriwe mu buryo bunyuranije n’amategeko, bityo akaba agenewe mu bushishozi bw’Urukiko 1.000.000Frw ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 102

## Page 128

y’igihembo cya Avoka kuko atagaragaza ko ayo asaba ariyo yarutanzeho III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [34] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Munyampundu Antoine bufite ishingiro; [35] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mukarugambwa Béatrice bufite ishingiro; [36] Rwemeje ko ifatira ryakorewe imitungo ya Munyampundu Antoine na Mukarugambwa Béatrice kugirango hishyurwe imisoro yaciwe Quincaillerie du Nil riteshejwe agaciro; [37] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura Mukarugambwa Béatrice 500.000Frw y’ikurikiranarubanza na 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka; [38] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura Munyampundu Antoine 1.000.000Frw y’igihembo cya Avoka; [39] Rutegetse Ikigo cy’Imisoro n’Amahôro kwishyura amagarama y’urubanza. . 103 MUNYAMPUNDU N’UNDI v. RRA

## Page 130

IMANZA NSHINJACYAHA

## Page 132

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RUKURU – RP0015/2017/HCCI (Mukamurenzi, P.J.) 20 Werurwe 2018] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Ibigize icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu – Kugira ngo icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kibeho hagomba ibintu bitatu ari byo: ibikorwa byakozwe nko gushakisha umuntu, kwimurira umuntu ahandi, uburyo bwakoreshejwe burimo gukoresha ingufu, uburiganya n’ibikangisho, ndetse n’ikigamijwe nko kumwangiza ubuzima no kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Ibyaha byo gucuruza abantu – Kuvana abantu mu gihugu ugamije kubacuruza – Kuba umuntu ujyanywe ari mukuru kandi nawe yashakaga kugenda ntibyaba impamvu ituma uwabikoze adakurikiranwa kuko bikorwa mu buryo bw’uburiganya – Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, Ingingo ya 251 – Umugereka wo kuwa 15/11/2003 w’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku bijyanye n’ikumira n’ihanwa ry’icuruzwa ry’abantu by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, ingingo ya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Mu Rukiko Rukuru, urugereko ruburanisha ibyaha byo mu rwego mpuzamahanga n’ibyaha byambuka imbibi, Ubushinjacyaha bwakurikiranye Nyirabagenzi na Mukakabano ku cyaha cyo gucuruza abantu nyuma yuko Nyirabagenzi na Murekatete bafatiwe ku mupaka w’u Rwanda n’Ubugande i Gatuna, bavuga ko bagiye gushaka akazi mu gihugu cya Omani. 107

## Page 133

Ubushinjacyaha bukagaragaza ko bagaruwe Murekatete agiye gucuruzwa na Nyirabagenzi. Bugaragaza kandi ko kuva mu mwaka wa 2014, Murekatete Amina yashishikarijwe ibyo kujya gukora akazi muri Omani ariko icyo gihe abuzwa kugenda n’uko yari afite umwana muto, ko nyuma mu 2017, Nyirabagenzi yongeye kumushishikariza kugenda anyuze kuri nyina, amubwiraga ko muri Omani hari akazi n’ubuzima bwiza, maze ku gitutu cya nyina wamwumvishaga ko ari umukobwa wabyaye ko aramutse agiye yabasha kubona akazi bagahindura ubuzima, anamubwira ko hari abandi bakobwa bagiye kandi bamerewe neza, bituma nawe afata icyemezo yemera kugenda ariko bafatirwa ku mupaka wa Gatuna kandi ko Nyirabagenzi afite abandi bantu bakorana barimo Mukakabano, uyu akaba ariwe Ubushinjacyaha buvugako ariwe wahuje Nyirabagenzi, Murekatete nuwitwa Lydia (Fatima) bari guhamagara bageze i Kampala kugirango abafashe kuzagera muri Omani maze aha Nyirabagenzi nimero ze za telephone. Abaregwa baburanye bahakana icyaha, kuri Nyirabagenzi asobanura ko we na Murekatete bafashwe bari mu rugendo bajya gushaka akazi kandi ko ubushinjacyaha butagaragaza ko yafatiwe ku isoko ricururizwaho abantu, uwo yari agiye kugurisha nawe, n’igiciro yahawe kandi ko Murekatete buvugako yari agiye kugurisha ari umuntu ukuze utakora ikintu adashaka. Naho kuri Mukakabano, yireguye avuga ko atashatse kugira uwo acuruza, asobanura ko yabaye muri Omani kuva 2012 kugeza 2014 akaba yarafite nimero yuwitwa Lydia (Fatima) ukora muri sosiyete yo muri Kenya ishakira abantu akazi kugirango nashaka gusubirayo azamufashe. Ko yamenyanye na Nyirabagenzi bahuriye ku rubuga rwa whatsup rw’abanyarwanda baba muri Omani nyuma yaho amubwiyeko ashaka kuzasubirayo gushaka akazi amuha nimero ya Lydia (Fatima) kugirango azamufashe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 108

## Page 134

Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Kugira ngo icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kibeho hagomba ibintu bitatu ari byo: ibikorwa byakozwe nko gushakisha umuntu, kwimurira umuntu ahandi, uburyo bwa koreshejwe burimo gukoresha ingufu, uburiganya n’ibikangisho, ndetse n’ikigamijwe nko kumwangiza ubuzima no kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe. 2. Ibikorwa Nyirabagenzi akurikiranyweho byo gushakisha, gushishikariza no gutwara Murekatete amuvanye mu Rwanda amujyana mu gihugu cya Omani, umugambi we ukaburizwamo n’uko bagaruriwe ku mupaka wa Gatuna bigize icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu (trafficking), aho kuba icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. 3. Kuba Murekatete wari ujyanywe, ari mukuru kandi nawe yarashakaga kugenda ntibyaba impamvu ituma Nyirabagenzi adakurikiranwa kuko yari atwawe mu buryo bw’uburiganya bishingikirije uburyo yari abayeho mu bukene, ari n’umukobwa wabyariye iwabo. Iki cyaha kibaho kabone n’iyo ugikorewe yaba yabyemeye. 4. Kuba Mukakabano Nadia yaragize uruhare rwo guhuza Nyirabagenzi Mariam, Murekatete Amina nuwitwa Fatima wari i Kampala wari kubafasha kujya muri Omani, icyo gikorwa kigize ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kuvana abantu mu gihugu (trafficking). Abaregwa bahamwa n’ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu (trafficking); Amagarama aherereye ku isanduku ya Leta.

109 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 135

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 27,250,251 niya 252. Umugereka wo kuwa 15/11/2003 w’Amasezerano Mpuzamahanga ku bijyanye n’ikumira n’ihanwa ry’icuruzwa ry’abantu by’umwihariko abagore n’abana, ingingo ya 3. Nta manza zifashishijwe. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Nyirabagenzi Mariam na Murekatete Amina bafatiwe ku mupaka w’u Rwanda n’Ubugande i Gatuna, bavuga ko bagiye gushaka akazi mu gihugu cya Omani. Murekatete Amina abazwa yavuze ko yahoraga ashishikarizwa gushakirwa akazi muri Omani abuzwa kugenda n’uko yari afite umwana muto. Ubushinjacyaha bwaregeye urukiko buvuga ko Murekatete Amina yagaruriwe ku mupaka wa Gatuna agiye gucuruzwa na Nyirabagenzi Mariam abifashijwemo na Mukakabano Nadia Yazida. Aba barabihakana, Nyirabagenzi Mariam avuga ko bombi bafashwe bagiye gushaka akazi mu gihugu cya Omani naho Mukakabano Nadia Yazida avuga ko nimero za telefone yahaye Nyirabagenzi Mariam ari iz’umuntu wari kumufasha kubona akazi n’ibyangombwa byo kujya muri Omani ko atari agamije kugira uwo acuruza. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 110

## Page 136

[2] Ibibazo bisuzumwa mu rubanza ni ukumenya niba Nyirabagenzi Mariam yarafashwe ajyanye Murekatete Amina mu mahanga agamije kumucuruza no kumenya niba kuba Mukakabano Nadia Yazida yaratanze nimero za telephone z’umuntu wari kubafasha gushaka ibyangombwa byo kujya mu gihugu cya Omani bigaraza uruhare mu cyaha aregwa. II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO Kumenya niba Nyirabagenzi Mariam yarafashwe ajyanye Murekatete Amina mu mahanga agamije kumucuruza. [3] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko kuva mu 2014, Murekatete Amina yashishikarijwe ibyo kujya gukora akazi muri Omani ariko icyo gihe abuzwa kugenda n’uko yariafite umwana muto, ko nyuma mu 2017, Nyirabagenzi Mariam yongeye kumushishikariza kugenda anyuze kuri nyina, amubwira ko muri Omani hari akazi n’ubuzima bwiza, maze ku gitutu cya nyina wamwumvishaga ko ari umukobwa wabyaye ko aramutse agiye yabasha kubona akazi bagahindura ubuzima, anamubwira ko hari abandi bakobwa bagiye kandi bamerewe neza, bituma nawe afata icyemezo yemera kugenda ariko bafatirwa ku mupaka wa Gatuna. [4] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga kandi ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam afite abandi bantu bakorana barimo Mukakabano Nadia Yazida n’abandi baba mu gihugu cya Kenya, nk’uwitwa Fatima bita Lydia bari guhamagara bageze i Kampala akabafasha kubona ibyangobwa byo kujya muri Omani. Busobanura ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam abazwa mu bugenzacyaha ndetse no mu bushinjacyaha yemeye ko yafatiwe i Gatuna ari kumwe na 111 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 137

Murekatete Amina bagiye muri Uganda aho bari guhurira n’uwitwa Lydia wari kubafasha kujya muri Omani, ko aniyemerera ko ariwe washishikarije Murekatete ko muri Omani hari akazi keza n’ubuzima bwiza ko ahazi yahabaye. [5] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu gitangirira ku bikorwa byo gushishikariza, gutoranya, gushakirwa ibyangombwa n’amatike no kujyanwa, ko ibyo byose byabaye ariko kubwamahirwe bafatirwa i Gatuna. Buvuga ko ubushake nabwo bugaragarira muri uko gushishikaza yizezwa ibitangaza birimo akazi keza, kandi ko bamufatiranye mu bukene. [6] Nyirabagenzi Mariam ahakana icyaha aregwa avuga ko ubushinjacyaha butagaragaza ko yafatiwe ku isoko ricururizwaho abantu, uwo yari agiye kugurisha nawe n’igiciro yahawe. Asobanura ko we na Murekatete bafatiwe ku mupaka bagiye i Bugande, ko bari mu rugendo bajya gushaka akazi, kandi ko atigeze amushishikariza ibyo kujya muri Omani kuko ubwe batari baziranye, ahubwo ari nyina wamusabye kumumujyanira kubera ko yari azi ko yabaye muri Omani kandi ko yari agiye gusubirayo. Avuga kandi ko Murekatete ubwe agaragaza uburyo yabonye passport mu 2014 akavuga n’abayimushakiye kandi we akaba ataziranye nabo, ko n’igihe yayishakiwe we yakoraga muri Omani, aba ari naho amenyera ko yashakaga kujyayo. Yongeraho ko atari we wamuhaye itike imujyana mu rugendo barimo, ko bahuriye Nyabugogo, bafata imodoka bari kumwe, ko ikindi kandi Murekatete nawe ari umuntu ukuze akaba atari gukora ikintu adashaka. [7] Akomeza avuga ko yabaye muri Omani amezi icumi, agaruka mu Rwanda kontaro ye itarangiye aje gushyingura mukuru we, akazi yari afite bagaha abandi, ko ubwo yafatwaga ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 112

## Page 138

yari asubiyeyo gushaka akazi ajyanye na Murekatete, ko bari kubifashwamo n’uwitwa Fatima bita Lydia bari gusanga i Kampala bari baravuganye kuri telefone ahawe nimero na Mukakabano Nadia Yazida bamenyaniye muri Omani bahakora, akaba yari yanamubwiye ko azazana na Murekatete Amina. [8] Me Assumani Minsiragwira avuga ko nta kimenyetso simusiga ubushinjacyaha butanga usibye imvugo za Murekatete Amina zitagaragaramo ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam yari mu bashakaga kumujyana muri Omani mu 2014. Avuga kandi ko Nyirabagenzi nta mugambi yagize wo gucuruza abantu, kuko kuba yarafashwe ari kumwe na Murekatete nta gikorwa cyo gucuruza abantu kirimo kubera ko byari kwitwa gucuruza abantu iyo amutwara ntihazagire umenya ko yamutwaye, kandi Murekatete Amina nawe akaba yarashakaga kujya gushaka akazi. Asoza avuga ko n’ibimenyetso ubushinjacyaha butanga harimo gushidikanya, kuko nta soko, nta muguzi, nta n’igiciro byagaragajwe, ko bashingiye ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha asanga ugushidikanya kwarengera ushinjwa, maze Nyirabagenzi akagiwa umwere. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [9] Urukiko rusanga ubushinjacyaha bushingira ku kuba Nyirabagenzi Mariam yarafatiwe ku mupaka wa Gatuna atwaye Murekatete Amina, kuba aho bari bagiye batahazi uretse kuvuga gusa kujya gushaka akazi muri Omani no kuba hari abantu batazi bari kubashakira ibyangombwa n’itiki izabageza muri Omani bukabiheraho burega Nyirabagenzi Mariam icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu. 113 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 139

[10] Urukiko rusanga mu miburanire ya Nyirabagenzi Mariam no mu ibazwa rye mu iperereza avuga ko yabaye muri Omani akora akazi ko mu rugo ariko aza kugaruka mu gihugu, ko nyuma yashatse gusubira yo gushaka akazi kubera ko yabonaga afite imibereho mibi abaza nyina wa Murekatete Amina niba uyu agishaka kujyayo kugira ngo bazajyane kuko ubwo yari muri Omani yamenye ko yashakaga kuhajya. Rusanga anavuga ko kugera muri Omani bari kubifashwamo n’uwitwa Fatima cyangwa Lydia, uba muri Kenya ahari company ishakira abantu akazi, ko batari baziranye ariko ko bari bavuganye kuri telefone ahawe nimero ze na Mukakabano Nadia. [11] Urukiko rusanga Murekatete Amina abazwa mu bugenzacyaha yaravuze ko atari asanzwe aziranye na Nyirabagenzi Mariam, ko kugira ngo bamenyane yanyuze kuri nyina, nawe amwumvisha ko yajyana nawe gushaka akazi muri Omani, anamubwira ko yahagirira ubuzima bwiza, ko no mu 2014, uwitwa Mama Mudasiru, nabwo aciye kuri nyina umubyara, yashatse kumujyana ariko arabyanga kuko icyo gihe umwana we yari akiri muto. Rusanga anavuga ko bari gushyikira ku mupaka wa Uganda na Kenya bakahahurira n’umuntu atazi amazina ye wari kubaha itike y’indege yo kujya muri Omani kandi ko atari azi uwo yari agiye gukorera. [12] Urukiko rusesenguye ibivugwa n’Ubushinjacyaha n’ibivugwa na Nyirabagenzi ndetse n’imvugo ya Murekatete Amina, rusanga kuva mu 2014, Murekatete Amina yarashakishijwe ndetse anashishikarizwa kujya gukora muri Omani kuko yashakiwe ibyangombwa n’uwitwa mama Mudasiru ariko ntiyagenda bitewe n’uko yari afite umwana muto. Runasanga mu 2017, Nyirabagenzi Mariam nawe anyuze kuri mama we yaramushishikarije kujya muri Omani amubwira ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 114

## Page 140

yahabona akazi ndetse anamwizeza ko bazajyana, ndetse baza gufatirwa ku mupaka wa Gatuna bavuga ko bagiye i Bugande aho bari guhurira n’umuntu wari kubafasha kugera mu gihugu cya Omani. [13] Urukiko rusanga muri urwo rugendo bigaragara ko Murekatete atari azi aho agiye, uburyo azagerayo, abantu bari kumufasha muri urwo rugendo ndetse n’icyo yari gukora agezeyo. Rusanga ariko Nyirabagenzi we bigaragara ko ariwe ufite amakuru y’urwo rugendo, azi aho ajyanye Murekatete kuko ariwe wamushatse amusaba ko bajyana gushaka akazi muri Omani, azi inzira bazanyuramo kuko yivugira amazina y’uwari kubafasha bageze i Bugande bita Fatima cyangwa Lydia akanavuga ko banavuganaga kuri telefone kuko yari yarahawe nimero ze na Mukakabano Nadia. Rusanga Nyirabagenzi anavuga ko uwo Fatima bita Lydia yari yarafashije abandi bakobwa kujya muri Omani. [14] Urukiko rusanga ingingo ya 250 1o y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/20012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana iteganya ko icuruzwa ry’abantu ari ibikorwa bihindura umuntu igicuruzwa bijyanye no gushakisha cyangwa kwimurira umuntu ahandi mu gihugu cyangwa mu mahanga hakoreshejwe uburiganya, ibikangisho, imbaraga cyangwa agahato, ububasha ubikora aba amufiteho, akenshi hagamijwe kumwangiriza ubuzima cyangwa kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe akoreshwa mu biterasoni, mu buraya, mu bikorwa binyuranyije n’amategeko, mu bisa n’ubucakara, kumwica urubozo no kumukorera urugomo ndengakamere cyangwa kumukoresha imirimo yo mu rugo nk’umuja, hishingikirijwe intege nke umuntu afite zikomoka ku bibazo afitanye n’ubuyobozi, ku 115 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 141

gutwita k’umugore wibana, indwara, ubumuga n’ibindi bibazo byatuma umuntu muzima akora icyo atatekereje. [15] Urukiko rusanga ibyo bisobanuro bihura n’ibivugwa mu ngingo ya 3 y’umugereka wo ku wa 15/11/2000 w’amasezerano mpuzamahanga ku bijyanye n’ikumira n’ihanwa ry’ icuzuzwa ry’abantu by’umwihariko abagore n’abana u Rwanda rwashyizeho umukono kuwa 26/09/2003, iyo ngingo ikaba inavuga ko icyo cyaha kibaho kabone n’iyo ucuruzwa yaba yabyemeye. 1 [16] Urukiko rusanga nanone ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/20012 ryavuzwe yo iteganya ko umuntu wese ugira uruhare, ku buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, ari we cyangwa abicishije ku wundi, mu gutorokesha umuntu avanywe mu Rwanda ajyanywe mu mahanga agamije kumucuruza, akoresheje ubushukanyi, imbaraga, ibikangisho n’ubundi buryo bw’agahato; yishingikirije ibibazo umuntu afitanye n’ubuyobozi, ubutabera, ubupfubyi, ubukene, kwibana,

1 Article 3 of Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime (15/11/2000), provides that : for the purposes of this Protocol : a.« Trafficking in persons » shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of the person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other form of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. b. The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 116

## Page 142

ubumenyi buke, imirimo ivunanye, umuryango w’indahekana, ibura ry’akazi, uburwayi, ubumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa bwo mu mutwe, icyuho mu itegeko n’ibindi byatuma umuntu muzima akora ibyo atatekereje. [17] Urukiko rusesenguye ibikubiye muri izo ngingo, rusanga kugira ngo icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kibeho hagomba ibintu bitatu ari byo: ibikorwa byakozwe nko gushakisha umuntu, kwimurira umuntu ahandi, uburyo bwa koreshejwe burimo gukoresha ingufu, uburiganya n’ibikangisho, ndetse n’ikigamijwe nko kumwangiza ubuzima no kumubyaza inyungu zitemewe. [18] Urukiko rurebye ibiteganywa n’izo ngingo, ndetse n’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/20012 ryavuzwe ivuga ku byerekeranye n’ubwinjiracyaha, rusanga ibikorwa Nyirabagenzi Mariam akurikiranyweho byo gushakisha, gushishikariza no gutwara Murekatete Amina amuvanye mu Rwanda amujyana mu gihugu cya Omani aho yamwumvishaga ko azabona akazi keza akagira ubuzima bwiza, umugambi we ukaburizwamo n’uko bagaruriwe ku mupaka wa Gatuna bigize icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu, aho kuba icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu giteganywa n’ingingo ya 252 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/20012 ryavuzwe kuko urukiko rusanga igikorwa yakoze ari ukuvana umuntu mu Rwanda amujyanye mu mahanga mu rwego rwo kumucuruza. [19] Urukiko rusanga ibyo Nyirabagenzi Mariam avuga ko ajyana na Murekatete atari agamije kumucuruza, ko ari mukuru kandi nawe yashakaga kujya gushaka akazi, nta shingiro bifite kuko harebwe ko ariwe washakishije Murekatete anyuze kuri nyina avuga ko bajyana muri Omani kandi azi neza ko nta 117 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 143

byangombwa byo kujyayo afite, hakanarebwa ko avuga ko hari umuntu batazi bavuganaga kuri telefone bari guhurira mu gihugu cy’Ubugande wari kubafasha kubona ibyangombwa, akabaha n’itike y’indege, atanavuga icyo bo bazakora cyangwa bazatanga kugira ngo abafashe, urukiko rusanga urwo ruhererekane rugaragaza ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam yari azi neza ko ibyo akora ari ukuvana Murekatete mu gihugu agamije ku mucuruza yishingikirije ubukene yari afite kubera kubura akazi . [20] Rusanga kandi kuba Murekatete ari mukuru kandi ko nawe yashakaga kugenda bitaba impamvu ituma Nyirabagenzi adakurikiranwa kuko Murekatete yatwawe mu buryo bw’uburiganya bishingikirije uburyo yari abayeho mu bukene, ari n’umukobwa wabyariye iwabo bituma afata icyemezo cyo kugenda. Byongeye kandi n’amasezerano mpuzamahanga ku bijyanye n’ikumira n’ihanwa ry’icuruzwa ry’abantu by’umwihariko abagore n’abana yavuzwe, akaba ateganya ko icyaha kibaho kabone n’iyo ucuruzwa yaba yabyemeye. Kumenya niba kuba Mukakabano Nadia Yazida yaratanze nimero za telefone z’umuntu wari gufasha Nyirabagenzi na Murekatete kubona ibyangombwa byo kujya mu gihugu cya Omani bigaraza ko yagize uruhare mu ikorwa ry’icyaha akurikiranweho. [21] Ubushinjacyaha buvuga ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam ashinja Mukakabano Nadia Yazida ko ariwe wamuhuje na Fatima bita Lydia wari kubashakira ibyangombwa, akabafasha mu rugendo rwo kujya muri Omani, ko ari nawe wamubwiye ko hari abandi bakobwa babiri bagiye bamunyuzeho kandi ko nawe yemera ko ariwe watanze izo nimero. Buvuga ko iyo nimero ya telefone yatanze ari inkunga ikomeye yatumye Nyirabagenzi Mariam agera ku mugambi we wo kujya gucuruza Murekatete kandi ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 118

## Page 144

yanakoranaga na Fatima bita Lydia mukohereza abantu muri Omani kuko yari azi n’abandi bantu yafashije kujyayo barimo Sayidati na Dalila, anazi ko ashobora gushakira Nyirabagenzi na mugenzi we ibyangombwa bibajyana muri Omani. [22] Ubushinjacyaha bukomeza buvuga ko icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu kidakorwa n’umuntu umwe, gikorwa n’udutsiko dutandukanye, ko na Lydia yari kubaha abandi nabo bakabaha abandi kugeza bageze kucyo bashaka, ko kitagereranywa n’ubucuruzi bw’imyaka busanzwe, icuruzwa ry’abantu ryo riterwa n’aho bajyanywe n’impamvu ajyanywemo, ishobora kuba uburaya, imirimo adashaka cyangwa atakekaga ko ariyo agiye gukora, gukoreshwa ubucakara cyangwa ibindi bikowa bisa nabyo kimwe, kumuvanamo ibice by’umubiri n’ibindi, ko kuri Murekatete nawe hatagaragazwa imirimo yari agiye gukora, uwo yari agiye gukorera ndetse n’igihembo yari guhabwa. [23] Mukakabano Nadia Yazida avuga ko umushinjacyaha atagaragaza isoko bari bagiye gucuruzaho Murekatete, uwari ugiye kugura n’igiciro bari kubaha. Asobanura ko yabaye muri Oman kuva 2012 kugeza 2014, aragaruka, ko ariho yamenyeye Nyirabagenzi Mariam bahuriye kuri whatsapp, urubuga rw’abanyarwanda baba muri Omani, nyuma baza guhura bagarutse mu Rwanda baramenyana, ko ari naho yamenyaniye n’abandi barimo uwitwa Salima na Inès basubiye muri Omani bashakiwe akazi na company yo muri Kenya. Avuga ko uwo Salima ariwe wamuhuje na Lydia, umurundikazi ukora muri iyo company, kugira ngo nashaka gusubirayo azamufashe, ko ari muri ubwo buryo yabonye nimero z’uwo Lydia, maze Nyirabagenzi amubwiye ko ashaka gusubira muri Omani nawe arazimuha kugira ngo azamufashe gushaka akazi kubera ko we atashakaga gusubirayo. 119 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 145

[24] Akomeza avuga ko atibuka igihe yahereye Nyirabagenzi izo nimero kandi ko atamubwiye icyo yavuganye na Lydia, ko atanamumenyesheje iby’urugendo rwe na Murekatete. Yongeraho ko Nyirabaganzi Mariam ari umuntu mukuru, ko aho muri Omani yari asanzwe ahazi yarahabaye azi ko ntabyo gucuruza abantu bihakorewa, ukaba utanakorerwa ubundi bugizi bwa nabi kuko iyo ugiyeyo uca muri polisi yaho, ugakorana amasezerano n’umukoresha wawe, yarangira ukongera ugaca muri polisi yaho bakagusinyira ugataha, ko na Murekatete nawe ari mukuru nta wari kumushyiramo ikintu adashaka. [25] Me Minsiragwira Assumani, avuga ko kuba Mukakabano Nadia Yazida yaratanze nimero ya telefone atari igikorwa kigize icyaha cyo gucuruza abantu, bikaba bitanagize ubufatanyacyaha, kuko iyo bari muri Omani baba bariyo mu buryo buzwi, ko rero hashingirwa ku ngingo ya 165 y’itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanaza z’inshinjabyaha akagiwa umwere. UKO RUKIKO RUBIBONA [26] Urukiko rusanga Mukakabano Nadia Yazida yemera ko ariwe wahaye Nyirabagenzi Mariam nimero ya telefone ya Fatima bita Lydia wari kumufasha kubona ibyangombwa byo kujya gukora muri Omani. Rusanga anavuga ko nawe atarahura n’uwo Fatima bita Lydia ariko ko nimero ze yazimenye bitewe n’undi mukobwa witwa Salima uri muri Omani kugira ngo nashaka gusubirayo azamuceho kuko akora muri company yo muri Kenya ibashakira akazi. [27] Urukiko rusanga kandi mu miburanire ya Nyirabagenzi no mu mvugo ze abazwa avuga ko Mukakabano Nadia ariwe wamuhuje na Lydia bari gusanga i Kampala kandi ko yari ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 120

## Page 146

yamwijeje ko azabashakira ibyangombwa byo kujya muri Omani, ko nawe bavuganye umubwira ko azaba ari kumwe na Murekatete, anavuga ko ari Nadia wahaye nimero za telefone z’uwo Lydia abandi bakobwa bagiye mbere yabo bitwa Sayidati na Dalira. [28] Urukiko rusesenguye ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/20012 ryavuzwe, rusanga kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu bigaragarira mu buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, umuntu abikoze ku giti cye cyangwa abicishije ku wundi. Urukiko rugasanga rero kuba Mukakabano Nadia yaratanze nimero za telefone mu rwego rwo guhuza Nyirabagenzi Mariam na Murekatere Amina n’uwo bita Fatuma cyangwa Lydia bari guhurira i Kampala muri Uganda kugira ngo abafashe gushaka ibyangombwa byo kujya muri Omani bigaragaza ko yagize uruhare mu kuvana Murekatete Amina mu Rwanda amujyanye mu mahanga agamije kumucuruza. [29] Urukiko rusanga ibyo avuga ko nta ruhare yagize mu cyaha akurikiranyweho ngo kuko icyo yatanze ari nimero za telefone gusa kandi akaziha Nyirabagenzi wari usanzwe azi muri Omani, nta shingiro bifite kuko urebye uko asobanura uburyo yamenyanye n’uwo Fatima bita Lydia n’uburyo Nyirabangezi asobanura uburyo yamuhaye nimero ze, akanamubwira abandi bakobwa yazihaye akabafasha ndetse nawe akamwizeza ko azabafasha kubona ibyangombwa no kubona akazi, ndetse na Nyirabagenzi akavugana n’uwo Lydia amubwira ibya Murekatete bari kujyana bigaragaza ko Mukakabano Nadia Yazida akorana n’uwo muntu bita Fatima cyangwa Lydia basanga i Kampala kandi akaba azi neza ko abo amwoherereza nta kindi kiba kigamijwe uretse kubacuruza kuko avuga abandi 121 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 147

bakobwa baba muri Omani batavuga icyo bakora, akaba yaranabwiye Nyirabagenzi abandi bakobwa baciye kuri uwa bita Fatima ariko ntibagaragaze aho baherereye uretse kuvuga muri Omani. [30] Urukiko rusanga kuba Mukakabano Nadia atari aziranye na Murekatete Amina, atazi na gahunda yari afitanye na Nyirabagenzi Mariam bitavuze ko nta ruhare yagize mu gikorwa cyo gushaka kumujyana mu mahanga hagamijwe ku mucuruza kuko, nk’uko byasobanuwe hejuru, yagize uruhare rwo kubahuza n’uwo bita Fatima cyangwa Lydia, abaha nimero ye ya telefone bavuganiragaho ndetse akanabizeza ko azabafasha kubona ibyangombwa byo kujya muri Omani n’akazi, ikindi kandi bikaba bitari ngombwa ko amenyana nawe kuko ikirebwa aha ari uruhare yagize mu rwego rwo kumwohereza hanze y’igihugu n’icyari kigamijwe. [31] Harebwe ariko ibiteganywa n’ingingo ya 27 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/20012 ryavuzwe ivuga ku byerekeranye n’ubwinjiracyaha, rusanga igikorwa Mukakabano Nadia yakoze kigize icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu agamije kubacuruza kuko Murekatete yagaruriwe ku mupaka ntabashe kugera ku mugambi we. Ibyerekeranye n’ibihano [32] Ubushinjacyaha busabira Mukakabano Nadia Yazida na Nyirabagenzi Mariam igifungo cy’imyaka icumi n’ihazabu igera kuri miliyoni eshanu. [33] Nyirabagenzi Mariam avuga ko nta ruhare yagize mu kugenda kwa Murekatete Amina, ko atari we wamushishikarije ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 122

## Page 148

ko bose bagendaga bavugana n’abo bari guhura uko bizagenda. Anavuga ko afite abana ba mukuru we arera bafite uburwayi budakira, ko nyina ari umukecuru nta muntu wundi wabarera aramutse afunzwe, ko ari yo mpamvu yari yafashe icyemezo cyo gusubira muri Oman gushaka akazi. [34] Mukakabano Nadia Yazida avuga ko yasabye ko ubushinjacyaha bugaragaza ibiganiro byari kuri telefone ye yagiranye na Fatima ariwe Lydia ariko ko butabitanze, ko yanabubwiye ko afite abana, barimo umwe wavuye mu ishuli ariko ntibwabiha agaciro. [35] Me Assumana Minsiragwira ubunganira avuga ko ibimenyetso birimo gushidikanya kuko ubushinjacyaha butagaragaza ko bari bagiye kugurisha Murekatete Amina, ko rero hashingirwa ku biteganywa n’ingingo ya 165 y’Itegeko ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’inshinjabyaha abo yunganira bakagirwa abere kuko gushidikanya birengera ushinjwa. [36] Ingingo ya 251 iteganya ko umuntu wese ugira uruhare, ku buryo ubwo ari bwo bwose, ari we cyangwa abicishije ku wundi, mu gutorokesha umuntu avanywe mu Rwanda ajyanywe mu mahanga agamije kumucuruza : 1o akoresheje ubushukanyi, imbaraga, ibikangisho n’ubundi buryo bw’agahato; 2o yishingikirije ibibazo umuntu afitanye n’ubuyobozi, ubutabera, ubupfubyi, ubukene, kwibana, ubumenye buke, imirimo ivunanye, umuryango w’indahekana, ibura ry’akazi, uburwayi, ubumuga bw’umubiri cyangwa bwo mu mutwe, icyuho mu itegeko n’ibindi byatuma umuntu muzima akora ibyo atatekereje ahanishwa igifungo kuva ku mwaka umwe (1) kugeza ku myaka itatu (3) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga y’u Rwanda kuva ku bihumbi magana atanu (500.000) kugeza kuri miliyoni ebyiri (2.000.000). 123 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKAKABANO N’UNDI

## Page 149

[37] Urukiko rusanga nk’uko rwabisobanuye mu bika bibanza ibikorwa Nyirabagenzi Mariam na Mukakabano Nadia Yazida bakoze bigize icyaha cy’ubwijiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu kuko hagaragajwe ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam yashishikarije Murekatete Amina kujyana nawe muri Omani, bakanamufata amujyanye naho Mukakabano Nadia Yazida akaba yarabahuje n’uwo bita Fatuma cyangwa Lydia bari gusanga i Kampala akabafasha kujya muri Omani. [38] Urukiko rusanga rero hashingiwe ku bitegannywa n’ingingo ya 251 y’Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe n’iya 30 y’iryo tegeko Ngenga ivuga ku ihananwa ry’ubwinjira cyaha cy’ubugome cyangwa gikomeye, buri wese yahanishwa igifungo cy’umwaka umwe n’amezi atandatu n’ihazabu y’amafaranga ibihumbi 500.000 Frw. III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [39] Rwemeje ko Nyirabagenzi Mariam na Mukakabano Nadia Yazida bahamwa n’icyaha cy’ubwinjiracyaha mu cyaha cyo kugira uruhare mu kuvana abantu mu gihugu. [40] Ruhanishije buri wese igihano cy’igifungo cy’umwaka umwe (1) n’amezi atandatu (6) n’ihazabu y’amafaranga ibihumbi 500.000Frw. [41] Rutegetse ko basonerwa amagarama y’urubanza kuko baburana bafunze [42] Rwibukije ko kujurira bikorwa mu gihe kitarenze ukwezi kumwe (1), kubarwa uhereye igihe urubanza rusomewe. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 124

## Page 150

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA – RPAA0O21/14/CS- RPAA0022/14/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Hitiyaremye na Munyangeri, J.) 13 Ukwakira 2017] Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Igabanyagihano – Impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Umucamanza niwe uha agaciro impamvu nyoroshyacyaha – Igihe icyaha cyakoranywe ubugome bukabije byaba impamvu yo kutagabanyirizwa igihano – Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 71. Amategeko Mpanabyaha – Uburyozwacyaha bw’icyitso – Kuba byonyine uregwa nk’icyitso yari aho icyaha cyakorewe kabone nubwo we ntakintu gifatika yakoze, bitera akanyabugabo uwari urimo gukora icyaha, iyo myitwarire imushyira mu rwego rw’icyitso cy’uwakoze icyaha – Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 98. Incamake y’ikibazo: Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho abaregwa icyaha cy’ubwicanyi buvuga ko bakoreye Nteziryayo Anastase mu ijoro ryo ku itariki ya 06/12/2013 bamutemesheje umuhoro ku gikanu, ku maboko no mu mugongo kugeza apfuye, iperereza rigitangira abaregwa bombi bahise bemera icyaha. Urukiko rwaciye urubanza rwemeza ko abaregwa bahamwa n’icyaha, ruhanisha buri wese igifungo cya burundu rutabagabanyirije igihano n’ubwo bari batangiye bemera icyaha, 125

## Page 151

rushingiye ku kuba Ntabanganyimana yarakoze icyaha yabiteguye, naho Uzabakiriho ntiyagabanyirizwa igihano kuko yageze mu Rukiko agahindura imvugo ntavugishe ukuri. Abaregwa bombi bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, rwemeza ko n’ubwo Ntabanganyimana yemera icyaha adakwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano kuko ashaka gukingira ikibaba umuvandimwe we Uzabakiriho amukuraho icyaha kandi hari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yagikoze, ruhamishaho igifungo cya burundu buri wese yari yarahawe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga. Icyo cyemezo nacyo nticyashimishije abaregwa maze barongera bajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga basobanurako Ntabanganyimana yasangiye inzoga na nyakwigendera mu kabari nyuma baza kurwana maze kubera umujinya Ntabanganyimana yari afite yagiye i muhira kubyutsa murumuna we Uzabakiriho amusaba kumuhereza ngo ajye kwihorera undi nawe arabyemera, nyakwigendera ababonye yarirutse agwa ahantu h’ikizenga maze Ntabanganyimana amutema ku gikanu no mu mugongo aramwica. Ntabanganyimana asaba kugabanyirizwa igihano avuga ko yaburanye yemera icyaha ariko inkiko zabanje zimuha igihano kirekire, naho Uzabakiliho we avuga ko inkiko yaburaniyemo zirengagije ibisobanuro yatanze by’uko icyaha cyakozwe na Ntabanganyimana, ariko ko zamuhamije icyaha zidakoze iperereza, ariko imbere y’uru rukiko yemeye ko yabaye icyitso cya mukuru we. Ubushinjacyaha bwo buvugako kuba Ntabanganyimana yaragiye kubyutsa murumuna we bakajyana yabona uwo yari agiye gutega yirutse akamwirukaho akamutema akaboko, ijosi n’umugongo atarisubiraho kugeza ubwo amwishe, ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 126

## Page 152

yari yatekereje neza ku cyaha yakoze mbere hose (préméditation), iyi myitwarire akaba ari impamvu nkomezacyaha, naho kuri Uzabakiriho buvugako yagize uruhare mu rupfu rwa nyakwigendera nk’umufatanyacyaha wa mukuru we, kubera ko yatemwe akarinda yicwa ari aho arebera (participation passive), ibi bikaba bigaragara nko kumutera akanyabugabo ubushinjacyaha bukaba bwarasabaga Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ko rwahamishaho imikirize y’Urukiko Rukuru. Incamake y’icyemezo: 1. Nubwo Ntabanganyimana yemera icyaha aregwa ntiyagabanyirizwa igihano bitewe n’ubugome bukabije yakoranye icyaha kuko umucamanza adategetswe kukigabanya kuwemeye icyaha mu gihe asanze cyarakoranywe ubugome bukabije. 2. Kuba byonyine uregwa nk’icyitso yari aho icyaha cyakorewe kabone nubwo we ntakintu gifatika yakoze, byateye akanyabugabo uwari urimo gukora icyaha, kuko iyo atemera kumuherekeza yashoboraga gucika intege ntakore icyaha, ibi binatuma kandi uwahohotewe adashobora kwirwanaho kuko yabonaga atahangana nabo bombi, iyo myitwarire imushyira mu rwego rw’icyitso cy’uwakoze icyaha. 3. Nubwo Uzabakiriho yabaye icyitso mu rupfu rwa Nteziryayo, uruhare rwe ntirungana nurwa Ntabanganyimana wateguye umugambi wo kwica akanabikorana ubugome bukabije, kubera iyo mpamvu akaba agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka 10. Ubujurire bwa Ntabanganyimana nta shingiro bufite; Ubujurire bwa Uzabakiriho bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; Basonewe kwishyura amagarama. 127 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI

## Page 153

Amategeko yashingiweho: Itegeko Ngenga No01/2012/OL ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, ingingo ya 71,78, 98, 99. Imanza zifashishijwe: Ubushinjacyaha v. Nshutirakiza Narcisse, RPA0047/11/CS rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga kuwa 27/03/2015. Inyandiko z’abahanga zifashishijwe: Jean Pradel, Droit Pénal Général, 20ème édition, P. 405. Urubanza I. IMITERERE Y’URUBANZA [1] Uru rubanza rwatangiriye mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga, Ubushinjacyaha bukurikiranyeho Uzabakiriho Bernard na Ntabanganyimana Félicien icyaha cy’ubwicanyi buvuga ko bakoreye Nteziryayo Anastase mu ijoro ryo ku itariki ya 06/12/2013 bamutemesheje umuhoro ku gikanu, ku maboko no mu mugongo kugeza apfuye, iperereza rigitangira bombi bahita bemera icyaha. [2] Urukiko rwaciye urubanza RP0534/13/TGI/MHG ku itariki ya 09/01/2014 rwemeza ko abaregwa bahamwa n’icyaha, ruhanisha buri wese igifungo cya burundu rutabagabanyirije igihano n’ubwo bari batangiye bemera icyaha. Urukiko rwavuze ko Ntabanganyimana Félicien adashobora kugabanyirizwa kubera ko yakoze icyaha yabiteguye, naho Uzabakiriho Bernard ntiyagabanyirizwa igihano kuko yageze mu Rukiko agahindura imvugo ntavugishe ukuri. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 128

## Page 154

[3] Ntabanganyimana Félicien na Uzabakiriho Bernard bajuririye Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ruca urubanza RPA0075/014/HC/NYA-RPA0083/014/HC/NYA ku itariki ya 20/03/2014, rwemeza ko n’ubwo Ntabanganyimana Félicien yemera icyaha adakwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano kuko ashaka gukingira ikibaba umuvandimwe we Uzabakiriho Bernard amukuraho icyaha kandi hari ibimenyetso bigaragaza ko yagikoze, ruhamishaho igifungo cya burundu buri wese yari yarahawe n’Urukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Muhanga. [4] Icyo cyemezo nacyo nticyashimishije Ntabanganyimana Félicien na Uzabakiriho Bernard bajuririra Urukiko rw’Ikirenga; Ntabanganyimana Félicien asaba kugabanyirizwa igihano avuga ko yaburanye yemera icyaha ariko inkiko zabanje zimuha igihano kirekire, Uzabakiriho Bernard we avuga ko inkiko yaburaniyemo zirengagije ibisobanuro yatanze by’uko icyaha cyakozwe na Ntabanganyimana Félicien, ariko ko zamuhamije icyaha zidakoze iperereza, usibye ko ageze imbere y’uru Rukiko yemeye icyaha cyo kuba yarabaye icyitso cya mukuru we. [5] Urubanza rwaburanishijwe mu ruhame ku itariki ya 18/09/2017 ababuranyi bitabye, Ntabanganyimana Félicien yunganiwe na Me Dushimire Jeannette, Uzabakiliho Bernard yunganiwe na Me Nzabarantumye Augustin, Ubushinjacyaha buhagarariwe na Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric, Umushinjacyaha ku rwego rw’Igihugu.

129 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI

## Page 155

II. IBIBAZO BIGIZE URUBANZA N’ISESENGURWA RYABYO A. Ku birebana na Ntabanganyimana Félicien. Kumenya niba Ntabanganyimana Félicien yemera icyaha aregwa mu buryo budashidikanywaho ku buryo byamubera impamvu nyoroshyacyaha ituma agabanyirizwa igihano. [6] Ntabanganyimana Félicien avuga ko icyo anenga urubanza yajuririye ari uko yaburanye yemera icyaha kuva agifatwa, nyamara inkiko zikabirengaho zikamuha igihano kiremereye nta kumugabanyiriza, akaba asaba guhabwa igihano cyoroheje kuko icyo yahawe gikabije kuremera kandi itegeko riteganya ko yashoboraga kugabanyirizwa kugeza ku gifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10). [7] Ku birebana n’imikorere y’icyaha, Ntabanganyimana Félicien asobanura ko yasangiye inzoga na nyakwigendera Nteziryayo Anastase mu kabari, nyuma bakaza kurwana ariko abari aho bakabakiza. Avuga ko kubera umujinya yari afite awutewe n’ibyo nyakwigendera yari yamukoreye, yagiye imuhira kubyutsa murumuna we Uzabakiriho Bernard amubwira ko hari umuntu bamaze kurwana, ko agiye kwihorera, amusaba ko amuherekeza undi arabyemera. Akomeza avuga ko nyakwigendera yabakubise amaso akiruka, Ntabanganyimana Félicien amwirukaho, asimbutse ahantu h’ikizenga agwa mu mazi nawe amusimbukaho, nyakwigendera amufashe akaboko undi aragatema ararekura, hanyuma amutema ku gikanu no mu mugongo aramwica, asubira inyuma aho yari yasize murumuna we Uzabakiriho Bernard amubwira ko uwo bari bafitanye amakimbirane ari we Nteziryayo Anastase amaze kumwica, ko ariko atagomba kuzagira uwo abibwira. Arangiza avuga ko ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 130

## Page 156

icyaha cyo kwica Nteziryayo Anastase yagikoze wenyine, ko uretse kuba murumuna we yaremeye kumuherekeza, ari nta rundi ruhare yakigizemo uretse kuba yaramenye ko cyakozwe akagihishira. [8] Me Dushimire Jeannette avuga ko mu nkiko zabanje Ntabanganyimana Félicien yagiye akingira ikibaba murumuna we, ariko muri uru Rukiko akaba avugisha ukuri kuko agaragaza ko habayeho ubufatanyacyaha aho yemeye kumuherekeza, bityo akaba akwiye kugabanyirizwa igihano. [9] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko ubujurire bwa Ntabanganyimana Félicien nta shingiro bufite kubera ko icyaha aregwa yagiteguye agamije kwihorera nyuma y’imirwano yari yagiranye na nyakwigendera. Avuga ko ibyo Ntabanganyimana Félicien ashaka kugaragaza ko yasembuwe (provocation) bidakwiye guhabwa agaciro, ko mu kubisuzuma neza, Urukiko rwazifashisha urubanza RPA0274/08/CS rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Mbanzamihigo Jean Pierre rwaciwe n’Urukiko rw’Ikirenga ku itariki ya 07/01/2011, aho Urukiko rwashingiye ku byanditswe n’umuhanga mu mategeko Jean Claude Soyer ku byerekeye ukwirwanaho n’ubusembure (légitime défense et provocation), akaba avuga ko iyo uwasembuwe akoze icyaha impitagihe aba yihoreye, mu yandi magambo aba yihaniye aho kwiyambaza ubutabera. [10] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha akomeza avuga ko, ku birebana n’uru rubanza, Ntabanganyimana Félicien nawe yihoreye kuko hashize umwanya munini nyuma yo kurwana na Nteziryayo Anastase atarabasha kwigarura. Avuga ko ibi bisobanurwa no kuba Ntabanganyimana Félicien yaragiye kubyutsa murumuna we bakajyana, yabona uwo yari agiye gutega yirutse akamwirukaho akamutema akaboko, ijosi 131 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI

## Page 157

n’umugongo atarisubiraho kugeza ubwo amwishe, ibi bikaba bigaragaza ko yari yatekereje neza ku cyaha yakoze mbere hose (préméditation), iyi myitwarire akaba ari impamvu nkomezacyaha, ari yo mpamvu asaba ko Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rwahamishaho imikirize y’Urukiko Rukuru. UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [11] Ingingo ya 71 y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, iteganya ko ‟Umucamanza atanga igihano akurikije uko uhanwa yakoze icyaha, ashingiye ku mpamvu zabimuteye, uko uwakoze icyaha yari asanzwe yitwara, uburyo icyaha cyakozwemo n’imibereho ye bwite”. [12] Inyandiko zigize dosiye y’urubanza zigaragaza ko Ntabanganyimana Félicien agifatwa yemeye ko ari we wishe Nteziryayo Anastase amutemye, imbere y’uru Rukiko asobanura ko yabonye nyakwigendera aho bari bamutegeye ariruka, undi amwirukaho agwa mu kizenga amusangamo, amutemagura amaboko, igikanu n’umugongo kugeza amwishe. [13] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga icyaha cy’ubwicanyi Ntabanganyimana Félicien yakoreye Nteziryayo Anastase yaragikoranye ubugome bukabije nk’uko na raporo ya muganga ndetse n’amafoto y’umurambo wa nyakwigendera biri muri dosiye bigaragaza ko yishwe atemaguwe umubiri wose kugeza n’aho aciwe ikiganza, mu kumuha igihano ibyo bikaba bigomba kwitabwaho nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 71 y’Itegeko- Ngenga N°01/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 132

## Page 158

[14] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga, n’ubwo Ntabanganyimana Félicien yemera icyaha aregwa, umucamanza adategetswe kugabanya igihano ku wemeye icyaha mu gihe asanga icyaha cyarakoranwe ubugome bukabije nk’uko Ntabanganyimana Félicien yagikoze. Uyu murongo ni nawo wafashwe n’uru Rukiko mu rubanza RPA0047/11/CS rw’Ubushinjacyaha na Nshutirakiza Narcisse rwaciwe ku itariki ya 27/03/2015, aho uyu uregwa yaburanye yemera icyaha, ariko Urukiko rukanga kumugabanyiriza igihano kubera ubugome n’agashinyaguro yakoresheje mu kwica umugore we amutemaguye ibice bitandukanye by’umubiri1. [15] Hashingiwe ku mategeko no ku bisobanuro bimaze gutangwa, Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ubujurire bwa Ntabanganyimana Félicien nta shingiro bufite, bityo igifungo cya burundu yakatiwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, mu rubanza RPA0075/14/HC/NYA - RPA0083/14/HC/NYA rwaciwe ku itariki ya 09/01/2014 kikaba kidahindutse. B. Ku byerekeye Uzabakiriho Bernard Kureba uruhare Uzabakiriho Bernard yagize mu iyicwa rya Nteziryayo Anastase. [16] Uzabakiriho Bernard avuga ko yemera kuba yaragize uruhare rw’ubufatanyacyaha mu rupfu rwa nyakwigendera Nteziryayo Anastase akaba abisabira imbabazi. Asobanura ko Ntabanganyimana Félicien yaje saa mbiri z’ijoro yakomeretse yavuyemo n’iryinyo akamubyutsa amubwira ngo naze bagende, amubajije aho bagiye amubwira ko hari umuntu umukubise akaba agiye kwihorera ni uko barajyana. Akomeza avuga ko

1 Urukiko rw’Ikirenga, Icyegeranyo cy’ibyemezo by’inkiko, V. 3, Nyakanga 2016, P. 189-194. 133 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI

## Page 159

bageze mu nzira bakabona umuntu, yikanze ariruka, Ntabanganyimana Félicien amwirukaho aramutema agaruka amubwira ko amwishe ariko amubuza kubivuga, nawe yiyemeza kubikira ibanga mukuru we. [17] Akomeza avuga ko yicuza kuba yaraherekeje mukuru we kandi amaze kumubwira ko kwihorera, ko iyo atemera kumuherekeza n’undi atari kugenda, ko ariko byatewe n’amarangamutima y’umuvandimwe we wari uje yakomeretse kandi yagiye ari muzima, ndetse akaba yarumvaga ko n’ubwo amubwiye ko agiye kwihorera, nawe yashoboraga kuhagwa. [18] Me Nzabarantumye Augustin, umwunganira, avuga ko Uzabakiriho Bernard ntacyo yakoze atagombaga gukora kuko yabonye mukuru we Ntabanganyimana Félicien afashe umupanga agakeka ko ashobora guhura n’igitero, niko kwemera ko bajyana kuko yumvaga agomba kumuherekeza kugira ngo hagize ikimubaho amutabare. Avuga ko, kuba yemera ko yavuye mu rugo agaherekeza mukuru we azi neza ko agiye mu gikorwa cy’ubugizi bwa nabi, urwo ari uruhare rutaziguye yagize mu rupfu rwa nyakwigendera Nteziryayo Anastase, bityo bikaba byamubera impamvu ituma agabanyirizwa igihano. [19] Uhagarariye Ubushinjacyaha avuga ko Uzabakiriho Bernard yagize uruhare mu rupfu rwa Nteziryayo Anastase nk’umufatanyacyaha wa mukuru we Ntabanganyimana Félicien, kubera ko yatemwe akarinda yicwa ari aho arebera (participation passive), ibi bikaba bigaragara nko kumutera akanyabugabo nk’uko byemejwe mu rubanza rwa Kayishema Clément na Ruzindana Obed rwaciwe ku itariki ya 01/08/2001 n’Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwashyiriweho u Rwanda rwakoreraga Arusha. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 134

## Page 160

UKO URUKIKO RUBIBONA [20] Ingingo ya 78, 1° y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo ku wa 02/05/2012 rishyiraho Igitabo cy’amategeko ahana, iteganya ko “iyo hari impamvu zoroshya uburemere bw’icyaha, igihano cyo gufungwa burundu cyangwa cya burundu y’umwihariko gisimbuzwa igihano cy’igifungo kitari munsi y’imyaka icumi (10).” [21] Ingingo ya 98, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, Itegeko- Ngenga rimaze kuvugwa, iteganya ko icyitso ari uwafashije uwakoze icyaha mu byagiteguye, mu byoroheje imikorere yacyo cyangwa mu byakinonosoye kandi yarabikoze abizi, cyangwa uwoheje uwakoze icyaha, naho ingingo ya 99 y’iriyo Tegeko- Ngenga, igateganya ko icyitso kidahanwa kimwe n’uwakoze icyaha cyangwa uwafatanyije na we kugikora, keretse igihe itegeko ribiteganya ukundi cyangwa umucamanza abona ko uruhare rw’icyitso mu gukora icyaha rungana cyangwa ruruta urwa gatozi. [22] Umuhanga mu mategeko Jean Pradel agaragaza ko hari ubwo kuba byonyine uregwa nk’icyitso yari aho icyaha cyakorewe, bitera akanyabugabo bigatuma abagizi ba nabi basohoza umugambi wabo cyangwa bigaca intege uhohoterwa bigatuma adashobora kuba yakwirwanaho. Kuba rero uregwa yari ari aho icyaha cyakorewe, kabone n’ubwo we nta kintu yakoze gifatika, kuba iruhande rw’uwakoze icyaha nyirizina ubwabyo ari inkunga ikomeye, mu kumukurikirana bikaba bigomba kwitabwaho (... Un auteur avait noté à juste titre qu’il peut se faire qu’à elle seule la présence sur les lieux du prévenu….ait pour résultat d’accroître l’audace des malfaiteurs ou d’affaiblir la résistance de leur victime. Cette attitude 135 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI

## Page 161

physiquement passive comporte alors une aide psychologique positive et efficace qui doit être prise en considération au même titre)2. [23] Imbere y’uru Rukiko, Uzabakiriho Bernard ubwe yiyemerera ko yajyanye na mukuru we Ntabanganyimana Félicien amaze kumubwira ko hari umuntu bamaze kurwana kandi ko agomba kwihorera, agafata umupanga undi akamukurikira, bahuye na Nteziryayo Anastase abakubise amaso ari babiri agira ubwoba ariruka, Ntabanganyimana Félicien amwirukaho aramutemagura Uzabakiriho Bernard ntiyagira icyo abikoraho. Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga iyi myitwarire yarateye akanyabugabo mukuru we mu gukora icyaha, kuko iyo atemera kumuherekeza yashoboraga gucika intege ntajye kwica nyakwigendera, cyangwa se yanagenda nyakwigendera akaba yarashoboraga kwirwanaho. Ariko si ko byagenze kuko yababonye ari babiri agira ubwoba ariruka kubera ko yabonaga atashobora guhangana nabo bombi. Iyi myitwarire imaze kuvugwa iramushyira mu rwego rw’icyitso cy’uwakoze icyaha nk’uko biteganywa n’ingingo ya 98, igika cya mbere, agace ka 3, y’Itegeko-Ngenga N°01/2012 ryo kuwa 02/05/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru. [24] Urukiko rw’Ikirenga rurasanga ariko, n’ubwo Uzabakiriho Bernard yabaye icyitso mu rupfu rwa Nteziryayo Anastase, uruhare rwe rutangana n’urwa Ntabanganyimana Félicien wateguye umugambi wo kwica nyakwigendera akanabikorana ubugome bwinshi nk’uko byasobanuwe haruguru, cyane cyane ko abyemera akanabisabira imbabazi, bityo rero, hashingiwe ku ngingo ya 78,1° n’iya 99 z’Itegeko-Ngenga

2 Jean Pradel, Droit Pénal Général, 20ème édition, P. 405. ICYEGERANYO CY’IBYEMEZO BY’INKIKO 136

## Page 162

N°01/2012 ryavuzwe haruguru, Uzabakiriho Bernard akaba agomba guhanishwa igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10). III. ICYEMEZO CY’URUKIKO [25] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Ntabanganyimana Félicien nta shingiro bufite; [26] Rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Uzabakiriho Bernard bufite ishingiro kuri bimwe; [27] Rwemeje ko igifungo cya burundu Ntabanganyimana Félicien yahanishijwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, kidahindutse; [28] Rwemeje ko imikirize y’urubanza RPA0075/14/HC/NYA-RPA0083/14/HC/NYA rwaciwe n’Urukiko Rukuru, Urugereko rwa Nyanza, ihindutse ku birebana na Uzabakiriho Bernard; [29] Ruhanishije Uzabakiriho Bernard igifungo cy’imyaka icumi (10); [30] Rutegetse ko amagarama y’ibyakozwe muri uru rubanza aherera ku isanduku ya Leta. 137 UBUSHINJACYAHA v. UZABAKIRIHO N’UNDI

## Page 164

KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA [Rwanda URUKIKO RW’IKIRENGA– RS/REV/SOC 0001/16/CS – RSOCAA 00002/2016/SC (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda na Ngagi, J.) 09 Werurwe 2018] Amategeko agenga imiburanshirize y’imanza z’umurimo – Inzitizi – Ihamagazwa ry’amashyirahamwe adafite ubuzima gatozi – Ishyirahamwe ridafite ubuzima gatozi iyo ryabaye umuburanyi mu rubanza nyuma rigahagarika imirimo yaryo,rishobora kwongera kuhamagazwa mu rubanza rihagarariwe n’uwari umuyoboi waryo kuko ibikorwa iryo shyirahamwe ryitirirwa ari ibikorwa by’abanyamuryango akaba ari nabo baba bari mubufatanye – Itegeko N°21/2012 ryo ku wa 14/06/2012 ryerekeye imiburanishirize y’imanza z’imbonezamubano, iz’ubucuruzi, iz’umurimo n’iz’ubutegetsi.ingingo ya 3. Incamake y’ikibazo: Kanyarukiko yareze World Vision Rwanda mu Rukiko Rwisumbuye rwa Gasabo ayirega kutamuha ibyo amategeko amugenera harimo n’agenga abakozi bakorera World Vision Rwanda, avuga ko atahawe umushahara n’ibindi agenerwa n’amategeko ku mwanya mushya wa “SD Operator” yari yatangiye gukoraho, kwanga nkana gushyira mu nyandiko amasezerano y’akazi bagiranye, kwirukanwa binyuranyije n’amategeko. Akaba abisabira indishyi; urwo rukiko rwategetse WVR guha Kanyarukiko indishyi. 1 RWANDA LAW REPORTS ENGLISH VERSION

## Page 166

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM OF EDITORS ................................................................ iii MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE .............................. iv PREFACE ................................................................................. vi SCOPE OF THE REPORTS .................................................... vii CITATION ............................................................................... vii LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ viii LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED .............................................. x SUBJECT INDEX ..................................................................... xi KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA ................. 1 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA ............................ 11 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL .................................................................................................. 27 FOREST COMPANY VOLCANOES GORILLAS (FCVG) LTD v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) ........... 57 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) ....................................................................................... 81 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL ...................... 101 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL ....................... 119

## Page 168

TEAM OF EDITORS

LAW REPORTING TEAM

KAGABO U. Stephanie

KAVUTSE M. Claude

KUBWIMANA Jean Claude

MUJABI K. Naphtal

MWIHOREZE Claudine

iii

## Page 169

iv MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

MUGENZI Louis Marie : President of the Committee Judge of the Supreme Court

Dr. MUHIRE G. Yves : Vice President of the Committee Lecturer in the School of Law/UR

RUTAZANA Angeline : Vice President of Commercial High Court

Me BAGABO Faustin : Advocate at Rwanda Bar Association

BWIZA N. Blanche : Inspector of Courts GIRANEZA Clémentine : President of the Intermediate Court

HABARUREMA Jean Pierre : Prosecutor at National Level

KALIWABO Charles : Judge of the Court of Appeal

Dr. KAYIHURA Didas : Rector of ILPD

:

## Page 170

v KIBUKA Jean Luc : Judge of the Commercial High Court

Lt. col. MADUDU A. Charles : Judge of the Military High Court

MUREREREHE Saouda : Judge of the High Court

Prof. Dr. NGAGI M. Alphonse : Judge of the Court of Appeal

KABIBI Specioza : State Attorney RUKUNDAKUVUGA F. Regis : Inspector General of Courts

UWANTEGE Yvette : Judge of the Intermediate Court

## Page 171

vi PREFACE Dear Readers, The Judiciary of Rwanda is pleased to present to you the fourth volume of Rwanda Law Report for the year 2018. We are thankful to those who support us with their comments in order to improve the preparation of Law Reports and we also encourage others to give their feed back, this will enable us improve the Rwanda Law Reports. This volume, contains seven (7) cases, consisting of five (5) cases on merit; one (1) civil case, two (2) commercial cases and two (2) criminal cases, while the remaining two (2) are procedural ones. We are pleased to remind you that published cases can be accessed on the website of the judiciary which facilitates the users to find cases easily and quickly on http://decisia.lexum.com/rlr/en/nav.do Prof. Sam RUGEGE President of the Supreme Court President of the High Council of Judiciary

## Page 172

SCOPE OF THE REPORTS These reports cover cases decided by the Supreme Court cited under the heading below:

CITATION The Reports in this volume are cited thus: [2018] 4 RLR

vii

## Page 173

LIST OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS CONSIDERED Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 164……………………………………………………….......60 Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime of 15/11/2000, article 3……………………………………………...104 Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 95 (5)……………………………………………………………………..83 Law No37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax article 10……………………………………………………………..60 Law No12/2007 of 27/03/2007 on public procurement, article 87 and 89………………………………………………………………...60 Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income, article 16 and 37…………………………………………………………….60 Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as modified and complimented to date, article 10, 45, 60, 63 and 64..........................................60 article 46 bis and 48......................................................83 Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3 and 9………………………………………...30 Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 27,250,251 and 252..........................................104 article 71,78, 98 and 99...............................................122 viii

## Page 174

Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2 and 185..............................................................3 article 142......................................................................13 article 248 and 198........................................................83 Law No06/2001 of 20/01/2001 establishing value added tax articles 12 and 16…………………………………………………..60 Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to the contracts or obligations, article 258, 259 and 260……………………………30

ix LIST OF STATUTES

## Page 175

LIST OF CASES CONSIDERED Prosecution v. Nshutirakiza Narcisse, RPA0047/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/03/2015…………………………..122 Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) v. Misigaro Louis, RCOMA0074/11/CS rendered by Supreme Court on 11/04/2014…………………………………………………………...61 Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) v. Rubare Josias, RCOMA0149/12/CS rendered by Supreme Court on 11/03/2016…………………………………………………………...61 Solomon v Solomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL, AGC (Investments) Limited v Commissioner of Taxation, Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443……………….84 Twagiramungu v. Rwanda Revenue Authority, RCOMAA0056/2016/SC - RCOMAA0061/16/CS, rendered by Supreme Court, on 14/07/2011……………………………………84

x

## Page 176

xi SUBJECT INDEX Civil procedure – Objection – Conditions for admissibility of a claim – Interest for filing a claim – The interest has to be present at the time of filing a claim; that it is not allowed that the person files a case for the future interest – Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 142. MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA………….11 Company law – Piercing the corporate veil – Directors or shareholders’ liability has to be decided by the Court in that circumstance the Court disregards the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its owners, so that the latter be held liable for the actions or omissions of the company – Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 95 (5). MUNYAMPUNDU v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)………………………………….81 Liability – Seizure of the properties of shareholders and directors of a company with the purpose to sell it – The seizure of the properties of the shareholders and directors of a company without a judicial decision establishing their liability in the company’s failure to pay tax is to ignore the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its directors or shareholders – Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 95(5) – Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 46 bis. MUNYAMPUNDU v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)………………………………….81

## Page 177

Criminal Law – The offence of human trafficking – The elements constituting the offence of human trafficking – For the offence to be qualified as human trafficking, there has to be three elements namely recruitment of a person, transfer of a person to another part, the means used such as use of force, deception and threat, and intention pursued like harming his/her life or unlawfully exploiting her or him. PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL……101 The offence of human trafficking – Trafficking persons out of the country – The fact that the victim of trafficking is an adult and having agreed to go, can not prevent the perpetrator from being prosecuted because this offence is committed by means of deception – Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 251 – Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime of 15/11/2000, article 3. PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL……101 Penalty reduction – Mitigating circumstances – It is the the judge who considers the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances – When the offence was committed with severe cruelty, it can be a motive of not reducing the penalty – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 71. PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL……...119 The criminal liability of the accomplice – The fact that the accused was at the crime scene even though his role was not active, his presence encouraged the author because if he had refused to accompany him, the latter might have xii RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 178

xiii SUBJECT INDEX

been discouraged to go and kill the deceased, this also renders the victim unable to defend himself as he thought he cannot defend himself against both of them, this conduct puts him in the category of an accomplice of the offender – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 98. PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL……...119 Damages – Tort liability – The claimant for damages due to the prejudice suffered must prove the causal link between the prejudice and the fault commited. TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL…………………………………………….27 Labour procedure – Objection – Summoning of the association without a legal personality – An association without legal personality which was a party in the case and cease to exist can be summoned being represented by its head because its activities belong to its members who are also in solidum – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2. KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA….1 Liability – Product liabilities – Pharmaceutical product liability – A lincenced pharmaceutical is liable for the negative effects caused by the defective drugs which he/she imports – Decree law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 259 and 260. TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL…………………………………………….27 Tax law – Value added tax – Income tax – The advance payment given to the successful bidder to begin the work,

## Page 179

is exempted from taxes because it is not considered as a payment – Law Nº37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing value added tax article 10 – Law Nº12/2007 of 27/03/2007 on public procurement, article 86. FOREST COMPANY VOLCANOES GORILLAS (FCVG) LTD v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA)…………………………………………………..57 xiv RWANDA LAW REPORTS

## Page 180

PROCEDURAL CASES

## Page 182

CASE RELATING TO CIVIL, COMMERCIAL, LABOUR AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

## Page 184

KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT– RS/REV/SOC 0001/16/CS – RSOCAA00002/2016/SC (Mutashya, P.J., Karimunda and Ngagi, J.) March 09, 2018] Labour procedure – Objection – Summoning of the association without a legal personality – An association without legal personality which was a party in the case and cease to exist can be summoned being represented by its head because its activities belong to its members who are also in solidum – Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2. Facts: Kanyarukiko sued World Vision Rwanda to the Intermediate Court of Gasabo claiming that he was not given what he is legally entitled to, including those stipulated in the World Vision regulations, He also claims damages for not being paid his salary and other benefits for his new post of SD Operator, intentionally refusing to give him a written employment contract, unfair dismissal. Thus, he requests related damages. World Vision Rwanda appealed to the High Court and that Court found its appeal with merit and ordered Kanyarukiko to pay World Vision procedural and counsel fees. Kanyarukiko appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the High Court should not have admitted the appeal of World Vision Rwanda because it was lodged after the time limit, and that Kisaro ADP Committee should not have been forced to 1

## Page 185

intervene for the first time on the appellate level without being requested for, he also criticises the High Court decision that he was an employee of Kisaro ADP Committee disregarding the evidence he submitted to it which proves that he was an employee of World Vision Rwanda and it is the one which should have terminated the contract he concluded with Kisaro ADP Committee as a branch of World Vision Rwanda, he adds that the Court did not consider that he worked on the post of SD Operator while he produced its evidence. That court found his appeal with no merit. Kanyarukiko again filed a claim to the Supreme Court requesting for the rectification and interpretation of the judgment RSOCAA0002/12/CS because his appeal was registered on RSOCAA0002/14/CS, but he was given a copy of judgment with a different number and that some paragraphs of the judgment include the statements of the court which are not clear to the extent that they can be construed differently. That Court held that the typographical error should be rectified and that nothing is confusing in the mentioned paragraphs. He again applied for a case review to the Supreme Court, Kisaro ADP raised an objection of inadmissibility of the claim on the ground that there was no new element in the case. Kanyarukiko replied that they did not submit on that objection because he did not notice it. He as well raised the objection relating to the appearance of the parties before the court because Kisaro ADP Committee no longer exists, thus it cannot be still summoned in this case. Kisaro ADP Committee argues that the objection of the plaintiff is groundless because the fact that Kisaro ADP Committee does no longer exist, it does not prevent it from suing or being sued RWANDA LAW REPORTS 2

## Page 186

for what took place during its existence, especially that this case in which it was summoned to intervene is for a case review and it was filed when Kisaro ADP Committee was still operational and the motif which led Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques Cesar to file a case is the termination of employment contract that he concluded with Kisaro ADP Committee which means that it should be in this case. World Vision Rwanda states that if Kisaro ADP Committee was a party in the case which is subject to the case review, the plaintiff cannot state that it should not appear before the Court. Held: In case of an association without legal personality was a party in the case and cease to exist, it can be summoned being represented by its head because its activities belong to its members who are also in solidum, therefore Kisaro ADP must stay in the case. Objection overruled. The case in merit will proceed. Court fees suspended. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 2 and 185. No cases referred to.

3 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 187

Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case begun in the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César suing World Vision Rwanda for not giving him what he is entitled by the law and internal rules of World Vision Rwanda, he claims also for salary and other benefits on his new post as SD Operator which he begun to work on since 05 November 2009, having refused to put their employment contract in writing adamantly while he kept reminding them, unlawful dismissal, and harassment at work because of his opinion of requesting for a written employment contract. [2] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César as an employee of World Vision was requesting for damages equivalent to 125,892,536Frw plus 176,040USD. On 07/12/2012, the Intermediate Court of Gasabo rendered the judgment RSOC0107/11/TGI/GSBO, and ordered World Vision Rwanda to pay Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César 26,279,472Frw and 108,000USD. [3] World Vision Rwanda was not contented with the ruling and appealed to the High Court which rendered the judgment RSOCA0004/13/HC/KIG on 08/01/2013, and found the appeal of World Vision Rwanda with merit and ordered Kanyarukiko to pay World Vision Rwanda 100,000Frw for procedural fees and 300,000Frw for counsel fees. [4] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César was not satisfied with the rulings of the case and appealed to the Supreme Court RWANDA LAW REPORTS 4

## Page 188

arguing that the High Court should not have admitted the appeal of World Vision Rwanda because it was lodged after the time limit, that Kisaro ADP Committee should not have been forced to intervene for the first time on the appellate level without any request and also that the High Court held that he was an employee of Kisaro ADP Committee disregarding the evidence proving that he was an employee of World Vision Rwanda and World Vision is the one which should have terminated the contract it concluded with Kisaro ADP Committee as its branch. [5] In the judgment RSOCAA0002/12/CS rendered on 15/01/2016, the Supreme Court found the appeal of Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César without merit and sustained the judgment RSOCA0004/13/HC/KIG rendered by the High Court on 10/03/2014. [6] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César again filed a claim before the Supreme Court requesting for rectification and interpretation of the judgment RSOCAA0002/12/CS, rendered on 15/01/2016, on the ground that his appeal was registered on RSOCAA0002/14/CS, which is different from the copy of the judgment he was given because it has RSOCAA0002/12/CS, therefore he requests for rectification of the case number. And he further stated that in paragraphs 11, 17, 19, 22, 40, 41 and 45 of that judgment, contains ambiguous views of the court to the extent that it can be construed differently and that is the reason he is seeking its interpretation so that he understands the view of the Court in those paragraphs. [7] On 24/06/2016, the Supreme Court rendered the judgment RS/RECT & INTER/SOC0001/16/CS, and held that the typographical error has to be rectified and the number of the judgment is RSOCAA0002/14/CS instead of 5 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 189

RSOCAA0002/12/CS, it also held that there is no ambiguity in paragraph 11, 17, 22, 40, 41 and 45 of that judgment. [8] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César applied for a review of the case RSOCAA0002/14/CS. Requesting that the following issues be examined: 1. Whether there are conclusive elements of evidence which were not noticed by the court and if there were grave errors in the judgment of the case which can be based on for its review, for the court to re-examine the admissibility of the World Vision’s appeal in the High Court; 2. Whether there are elements of evidence which were not noticed by the Court and if there was confusion of the facts which can be a ground for its review, for the Court to re-examine whether Kisaro ADP Committee was in the organizational structure of World Vision Rwanda 3. Whether there are conclusive elements of evidence which were not noticed by the court and serious errors were committed during the judgment of the case which can be based on for its review, so that the Court can again examine whether Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César was an employee of World Vision Rwanda; 4. Examining the damages he requests for. [9] The case was heard in public on 20/02/2018, Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César assisted by Counsel Rutaganira Alexandre, World Vision Rwanda was represented by Counsel Muhozi Paulin and Gasarabwe Claudine, while RWANDA LAW REPORTS 6

## Page 190

Kisaro ADP Committee was represented by Habarurema Phocas assisted by Counsel Gatera Kanisa. [10] Kisaro ADP Committee raised an objection of inadmissibility of the application for review of the case on the fact that the grounds he relies on are not new because they were all produced before the court, Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César argued that they did not respond to that objection because they did not notice it. On his side he raised the objection relating to the appearance of the parties before the Court because Kisaro ADP Committee no longer exists. The issue of whether Kisaro ADP Committee which ceased to exist should continue to be summoned was the first to be analyzed by the Court. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether Kisaro ADP Committee should be removed from the case because it ceased to exist [11] Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César avers that Kisaro ADP Committee address is unknown and does not exist anywhere, therefore it should not be party to this case; he prays that the hearing continues without Kisaro ADP Committee because it no longer exists. He argues that if the hearing proceeds as if it exists, and in case the Court awards anything to them, the one who will appear before the Court representing Kisaro ADP Committee while it no longer has a known address in Rwanda, should first indicate the address of Kisaro ADP Committee, its functions and its owners. [12] Kisaro ADP Committee argues that the statements of the plaintiff are groundless because Kisaro ADP Committee having ceased to exist does not prevent it from suing or being sued for 7 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 191

what happened during its existence, this claim for which it was forced to intervene is for a case review and it was filed when Kisaro ADP Committee was still operational and the motif which led Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques Cesar to file a case is the termination of employment contract that he concluded with Kisaro ADP Committee, that means that it should be in this case in anyway. For the summon to be signed by its former administrator, should not cause any problem because he was the one who used to sign it and it is still the same claim continuing. Therefore, those remaining issues do not concern the plaintiff, rather it is for Kisaro ADP Committee. [13] The counsel for World Vision Rwanda state that if Kisaro ADP Committee was a party to the case which is being reviewed, then Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César cannot claim that Kisaro ADP Committee should not appear in this case. VIEW OF THE COURT [14] Article 2 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that a claim cannot be accepted in court unless the plaintiff has the status, interest and capacity to bring the suit. The provisions of the paragraph one of this Article shall also apply to the associations, organizations and institutions without legal status which cannot file cases before courts without precluding their possibility to be sued. Whereas article 185 of this Law provides that an application for review can only be made by persons who were parties to or represented in the challenged judgment. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 8

## Page 192

[15] The case file indicates that Kisaro ADP Committee was a party to the case in the High Court after that this Court decided to subpoena it. The file also indicates that Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court, and in the judgment RSOCAA0002/12/CS rendered on 15/01/2016, this Court found without merit his appeal and consequently, the judgment RSOCA0004/13/HC/KIG rendered on 10/03/2014 by the High Court of Kigali was sustained, implying that Kisaro ADP continued to be a party to the case and that is how it continued in the case RSOCAA0002/12/CS which was rendered on 10/07/2015 whose number was rectified to RSOCAA0002/14/CS which was subject to review. [16] The case file also indicates that in the previous instances, Kisaro ADP Committee was sued and represented by its head. That the association was composed of 12 people as indicated in the document of 29/11/2010, titled ADP Committee Election Report and Habarurema Phocas was elected to be its head and he is the one who represented it before the Court. [17] The court finds that as it was stated in the court session of 20/02/2018, that even though Kisaro ADP Committee no longer exists because it winded up its activities, it cannot be a reason to remove it from the case as alleged by Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César because it did never have the legal personality so that laws regulating the dissolving of the companies or organizations with legal personality apply, instead, Kisaro ADP Committee is a name its members chose to use, that is to say even its alleged activities are for its members not for the association and are the ones with obligations in solidum, therefore Kisaro ADP Committee must remain a party 9 KANYARUKIKO v. WORLD VISION RWANDA

## Page 193

in the case, because being inoperative does not stop it from suing or being sued for what transpired when it was still active. The Court further finds that for the summon to have been signed by its former president, there is no problem because he was the one who used to sign on its behalf and it is the same issue (claim) which still continues, therefore the case should remain as it was in previous instances, if not so it would be contrary to the provision of article 2 of the aforementioned Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 providing that institutions may be sued and the legislator provided it purposely to protect the interest of the nonmembers which may be indebted to the association. [18] Pursuant on the motivations above, the Court finds with no merit the objection regarding the appearance of the parties before the Court requesting that Kisaro ADP Committee be removed in this case. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [19] Overrules the objection raised by Kanyarukiko Jean Jacques César. [20] Holds that the hearing of the case will be heard in merit on 8/05/2018. [21] Court fees suspended.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 10

## Page 194

MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RS/INJUST/RC00023/2017/CS (Nyirinkwaya, P.J., Mukandamage and Karimunda, J.) January 12, 2018] Civil procedure – Objection – Conditions for admissibility of a claim – Interest for filling a claim – The interest has to be present at the time of filling a claim; that it is not allowed that the person files a case for the future interest – Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 142. Fact: This case started at Primary Court of Nyamirambo whereby Ntakirutimana on behalf of his children Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré, sued Musasangohe requesting that the Court compels her to register them on the property which she jointly owns with her legitimate husband, Ntigurirwa with whom they have another child named Mbatezimana Pautin. The Court held that the children represented by Ntakirutimana be registered on her mother’s properties, and they are entitled to 25% of it, while Mbatezimana Pautin, the child she gave birth with her legitimate husband will be entitled to 75% at the time of succession, it ruled also that no damages should be awarded in this case since it would be squandering of resources which is meant to raise children. Both parties appealed to the Intermediate Court whereby Ntakirutimana argued that the Court ruled ultra petita and it did not award the requested damages alleging that it was squandering family resources while Musasangohe alleges that 11

## Page 195

they are not married. On the other hand, Musasangohe argues that children she has with Ntakirutimana should not be registered on the property which she jointly acquired with her legitimate husband because they have their own property which jointly acquired with Ntakirutimana, thus the properties in litigation should be left to her and Mbatezimana, she has with a legitimate husband. In its judgment, the Court found their appeal without merit, and thus sustained the judgment rendered by the Primary Court of Nyamirambo. Thereafter, Musasangohe sought relief from the Office of Ombudsman, which also wrote to the President of the Supreme Court requesting for the review of the judgment rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge on the ground that it was vitiated by injustice because it disregarded the Law Nº43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda and the ministerial order N°002/2008 of 01/4/2008 determining modalities of land registration; and consequently the President of the Supreme ordered for review of that judgment. At the Supreme Court, Musasangohe raised objection of public order demonstrating that the claim of Ntakirutimana should not have been admitted by the previous Courts since the children he represented do not have the legal interest to file a claim, because the property they claim to be registered on, she is not its sole proprietor because she co-owns it with Ntigurirwa, her legitimate husband and she should not be deprived of her property since the succession will take effect after her death. Ntakirutimana argues that he filed a claim on behalf of his children because the property in litigation is registered only on Musasangohe and Mbatezimana, therefore, he wishes that even RWANDA LAW REPORTS 12

## Page 196

the other children be registered on that property so that they have same right on their mother’s property. Held : 1. The interest has to be present at the time of filling a claim; that it is not allowed that the person files a case for the future interest; therefore, the claim of Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré should not have been admitted by the previous Court because the interest is not present and immediate to be on their mother’s property Musasangohe, because it is not yet time for distribution of the descendent partition or inheriting her property; therefore she will be inherited at the right time and in accordance with succession law. 2. In case nothing proves that a wife and a husband who are parties to the case co- own the property, nothing prevents the winner to be awarded damages when it is necessary especially that they are not legally married. Application for review of the case on the ground of injustice has merit. Court fees to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 142. No case referred to.

13 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 197

Author cited: Hakim Boularbah, Olivier Caprasse, Georges De Leval, Frédéric Georges, Pierre Moreau, Dominique Mougenot, Jacques Van Compernolle et Jean-François Van Drooghenbroeck, Droit judiciaire, Tome 2, Manuel de procédure civile, Editions Larcier, 2015, p 91-92. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Ntakirutimana Ezira, on behalf of his children Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré, sued Musasangohe Vestine, mother of those children at the Primary Court of Nyamirambo praying to the Court to order her to register in their names the property which she jointly owns with her legitimate husband whose they gave birth another child named Mbatezimana Pautin. On 14 June 2013, that Court rendered the judgment RC0051/13/TB/NYB and held that Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré be registered on their mother’s property that comprise of the houses located on plot no1342, Ingenzi village and others which are located on plot no59, Nkundumurimo village, a piece of land no2118 in Kamenge village and the forest located on plot no2172 also in Kamenge village, and that they entitled to 25% like the child Mbatezimana Pautin that she has with her legitimate husband who is entitled to 75% at the time of succession and that the property continues to be administered by their mother. It also ordered that damages and counsel fees RWANDA LAW REPORTS 14

## Page 198

should not be awarded because it would be wastage of resource meant to raise those children. [2] Musasangohe Vestine and Ntakirutimana Ezira appealed to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge whereby Ntakirutimana Ezira claimed that the Court ruled on the share of each child on the property registered in the name of Musasangohe Vestine, and it distributed it in percentages while it was not part of the subject matter, and the damages were not awarded alleging that it would cause a loss to the family while Musasangohe claims that Ntakirutimana Ezira is not a legitimate husband. On the other side, Musasangohe Vestine appealed arguing that the children she has with Ntakirutimana Ezira should not be registered on the property which belongs to her legitimate husband, because together with Ntakirutimana Ezira they acquired for those children their own properties, furthermore, her husband at any time could return from exile because he disappeared in Congo, therefore the properties in litigation should be only left to her and her child Mbatezimana Pautin that she has with Ntigurirwa Cyprien. [3] On 13 December 2013, the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge rendered the judgment RCA 0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA 0190/13/TGI/NYGE whereby it found with no merit the appeal of Ntakirutimana Ezira since his request of registering the children he has with Musasangohe Vestine on the property of their mother was granted and the property was divided among the children, that the damages which he requested for were not necessary because they would be withdrawn from the property for which he requests to be registered in the names of his children. Regarding the appeal of Musasangohe Vestine, the Court found that she did not deny those children, thus, they are 15 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 199

entitled to the property of their mother as provided by article 326 of civil code book I which was into force by that time, and the previous Court did not order the opening of the succession, then, that it found both appeals without merit and sustained judgment RC0005/13/TB/NYB rendered by the Primary Court of Nyamirambo. [4] After the pronouncement of that judgment, Musasangohe Vestine sought relief from the Office of Ombudsman, on 31 August 2015, that institution wrote to the president of the Supreme Court requesting that the judgment RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rendered by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge be reviewed because it is vitiated by injustice basing on the ground that it disregarded the Law Nº43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda and ministerial order N°002/2008 of 01/4/2008 determining modalities of land registration; the president of the Supreme ordered for review of the judgment. [5] The hearing of the case was conducted in public on 11 December 2017, Musasangohe Vestine represented by Counsel Amani Jean de Dieu whereas Ntakirutimana Ezira on behalf of his children Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré was represented by Counsel Bundogo Innocent.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 16

## Page 200

II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES a. Whether Ntakirutimana Ezira, on behalf of his children, had the interest to file a claim requesting to register them on property of Musasangohe Vestine which she jointly acquired with Ntigurirwa Cyprien. [6] Amani Jean de Dieu, the counsel for Musasangohe Vestine states that basing on the provision of article 142 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 Law relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, he finds the claim submitted by Ntakirutimana Ezira would have not been admitted by the previous Courts since there is a public order ground to justify that the claim should not have been admitted because the children he represented do not have the legal interest to file a case to the Court since the property which they claim to be registered on does not belong only to their mother, rather she co-owns it with her legitimate husband Ntigurirwa Cyprien and Musasangohe Vestine should not be deprived the right on her property due to the succession that will take effect after her death, especially that her successors represented by their father who file claim, nothing proves that they are her only successors because she can give birth to other children. [7] Bundogo Innocent, the counsel for Ntakirutimana Ezira argues that he filed a case on behalf of his children whom he gave birth together with Musasangohe Vestine because the property of the latter was only registered on his child Mbatezimana Pautin; thus, he wished that others be registered on it so that they will have the right on their mother’s property, but during the preparing the case for hearing, Musasangohe Vestine declared that the property in litigation was registered in her names 100%, this led them to search the information to the 17 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 201

land management and use authority in Rwanda/ the office of land register and it demonstrated in the letter of 22 January 2017 that the property is registered in names of Musasangohe Vestine only, therefore, the fact that Mbatezimana Pautin is not registered on it, there is no reason to register other children on it. Therefore, the judgment which is subject to the review of the case due to injustice should be quashed. VIEW OF THE COURT [8] Concerning the objection of inadmissibility of the claim, article 142 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure provides that arequest for inadmissibility of a claim may be made by a party or court on its own motion. Request for inadmissibility of a claim shall be raised by the court on its own initiative if its reasons are of the nature of public law and order such as exceeding the time limit within which to appeal or lack of status, capacity or interest to sue. [9] Regarding the interest to sue provided in the article above, law scholars states that it has be in existence at the time of filling a claim; that it is not allowed that the person files a case for the future interest 1.

1 Manuel de procédure civile, Editions Larcier, 2015, p 91-92.“l’intérêt doit être né et actuel. C’est à dire qu’au jour où il exerce son action, le demandeur doit pouvoir tirer un avantage de la prétention qu’il a émise, dans le cas où elle serait déclarée bien fondée. Un intérêt éventuel ne suffit donc pas pour qu’une action soit recevable. En principe l’action ad futur umn’est pas autorisée, ce qui pose la question de la recevabilité des actions préventives et singulièrement des actions à portée probatoire ou déclaratoire, cette dernière étant destinée à faire constater l’existance ou RWANDA LAW REPORTS 18

## Page 202

[10] It is obvious in claimant case pleadings at the primary Court of Nyamirambo on 23 January 2013 that Ntakirutimana Ezira on behalf of his children Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré filed a case arguing that when registering the property, Musasangohe Vestine registered the whole property in her name and among her children she recordered it on Mbatezimana Pautin and she ignored the other 4 who also belong to her; he requested the Court that it should order her to register those children on her property because they will get nothing during the distribution of the descendent partition or at the time of succession since she registered the whole property on a sole heir and in addition to that he is afraid that in case she dies it will cause unnecessary lawsuits so that they can have the equal right as Mbatezimana Pautin. [11] The Court finds that the interest which Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré have on their mother’s property Musasangohe Vestine is not present and immediate, because it is not yet time for distribution of the descendent partition or inheriting her property; therefore she will be inherited at the right time and in accordance with succession law; thus, their claim should not have been admitted by the previous Court since they do not demonstrate a present interest in being registered on their mother’s property.

l’inexistence d’un droit en dehors d’une constatation actuelle”. Hakim Boularbah, Olivier Caprasse, Georges De Leval, Frédéric Georges, Pierre Moreau, Dominique Mougenot, Jacques Van Compernolle et Jean-François Van Drooghenbroeck, Droit judiciaire, Tome 2 19 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 203

[12] Therefore, basing on the provisions of article 142 of the Law Nº21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above and the given motivations, the Court finds that the judgment RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rendered by Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge which Musasangohe Vestine requested to be reviewed due injustice should be quashed as well as the judgment rendered RC0051/13/TB/NYB rendered by the Primary Court of Nyamirambo because the plaintiffs do not have the interest. b. Concerning damages requested by Musasangohe Vestine [13] Amani Jean de Dieu, the Counsel for Musasangohe Vestine argues that Ntakirutimana Ezira must give her client moral damages equivalent to 1,500,000Frw for being dragged her into unnecessary lawsuit, 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees and 500,000Frw of procedure fees on this instance. [14] Bundogo Innocent, the Counsel for Ntakirutimana Ezira states that all amount requested by Musasangohe Vestine should not be awarded because his client filed a case to the court on behalf of his children and he is the one who take care of them, therefore, the amount he could be charged must be deducted from the property they jointly acquired. VIEW OF THE COURT [15] The Court finds that nothing to prove that Ntakirutimana Ezira co-owns property with Musasangohe Vestine, especially that they are not legally married, thus nothing can prevent him to give her the damages she requests in case it is necessary to award them. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 20

## Page 204

[16] Concerning 1,500,000Frw of the moral damages Musasangohe Vestine requests Ntakirutimana Ezira, the Court finds that he dragged her into unnecessary lawsuit, however, that amount which she requests is excessive therefore, she is awarded 500,000Frw in its discretion. [17] With regard to 1,000,000Frw of the Counsel fees and 500,000Frw of the procedure fees which Musasangohe Vestine requests Ntakirutimana Ezira on this instance, the Court finds that it is true she hired a lawyer to follow up on the case, but nothing proves that the requested amount was spent on this case; therefore, in its discretion she is awarded 500,000Frw of the counsel fees and 200,000Frw for procedure fees, all amounting to 700,000Frw on this instance. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [18] Decides that the application submitted by Musasangohe Vestine for review of the case RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE due to injustice rendered on 13 December 2013 by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge has merit, [19] Quashes the judgment RCA0186/13/TGI/NYGE - RCA0190/13/TGI/NYGE rendered on 13 December 2013 by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, [20] Orders Ntakirutimana Ezira, on behalf of his children Umuhoza Aline, Ntakirutimana Elie, Ntakirutimana Yves and Ntakirutimana Honoré to pay 500,000Frw in moral damages and 700,000Frw of the procedure fees to Musasangohe Vestine as it was motivated above, 21 MUSASANGOHE v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

## Page 205

[21] Court fees born by the public treasury.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 22

## Page 206

CASES IN MERITS

## Page 208

CIVIL CASE

## Page 210

TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RCA00321/2016/HC/KIG, RCA00320/2016/HC/KIG, RCA00322/2016/HC/KIG, RCA00336/2016/HC/KIG (Kabagambe, P.J.) September 29, 2017] Damages – Tort liability – The claimant for damages due to the prejudice suffered must prove the causal link between the prejudice and the fault commited. Liability – Product liabilities – Pharmaceutical product liability – A lincenced pharmaceutical is liable for the negative effects caused by the defective drugs which he/she imports – Decree law of 30/07/1888 relating to tha contracts or obligations, article 259 and 260 Facts: After, HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD treated Tukakira, Mutesi, Bayitake and Rubagumya with ndlr lidocaine 2% injection , they suffered the negative effects, this led them to sue the hospital to the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge claiming to be reimbursed the expenses they incurred in the treatment of those effects, transport fees spent during the treatment, damages for the pain suffered after the injection of lidocaine 2%, moral damages, procedural fees and damages for being dragged into lawsuits. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD requested that SONARWA G.I.CO. Ltd, its insurer and ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd which supplied lidocaine 2% that was injected to the plaintiffs be summoned as warrantors; the Intermediate Court found their 27

## Page 211

claim with merit in part and held that ndlr lidocaine 2% which was injected to them caused them negative effect, that there was no professional fault committed by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD when administaring that drug. Therefore, the hospital as well as SONARWA G.I.CO. Ltd are not liable, then it found ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd liable because it is the one which sold ndlr lidocaine 2% injected to the plaintiffs, thus it ordered it to pay the requested damages. All the plaintiffs as well as ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd were not satisfied with that decisions and appealed to the High Court contesting the basis of those damages and how they are calculated. At the High Court, the issues analysed were the causal link between ndlr lidocaine 2% injection batch CM 4032 and the negative effects suffered by those who were injected and whether the requested damages should be awarded. In its defense, ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd stating that the previous Court based its decision on the fact that lidocaine 2% used was of substandard quality, but it disregarded that even if it was true, a causal link between lidocaine 2% injection and the negative effects suffered by patients had to be established, it further argues that it produced before the court enough elements of evidence which proves that the causal link between the negative effects suffered by plaintiffs and injection of lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Tukakira, Mutesi, Bayitake and Rubagumya argue that the Court considered the casual link between the seller and user of the lidocaine 2%, and also ABACUS PHARMA LTD must guarranty the safety of its products. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 28

## Page 212

HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD states that all plaintiffs on the first instance experienced negative effects after being injected, this demonstrates the causal link of the injection of lidocaine 2% and there are also elements of evidence including various reports from different laboratories proving that the drug which they were injected does not meet the required standard, therefore, ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd should be held liable for the negative effects caused by lidocaine 2%. The ministry of health was asked about the procedure in case the lincenced pharmaceutical imports defective drugs and it responded that the lincenced pharmaceutical is liable for the effects caused by that drug. Held: 1. The claimant for damages due to the prejudice suffered must prove the causal link between the prejudice and the fault commited. Basing on the test conducting by the various experts, the ndlr lidocaine 2% which ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd supplied to HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD did not meet the required standard and it is the one which caused negative effects to the plaintiffs. Therefore, ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd should be held liable for the effects caused by ndlr lidocaine 2%. 2. Moral damages resulting from negative effects caused by that drug are awarded in the discretion of the court since there is no specific Law regarding their calculation 3. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD should not pay damages for not taking proper care of the plaintiffs because it did not commit any professional fault, rather the faults were committed by ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd because it is the one which supplied the defective drug. 29 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 213

The appeal lacks merit. The Court fees deposited by the appellants is equivalent to the costs of the case Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°15/2004 of 12/06/2004 relating to evidence and its production, article 3 and 9. Decree Law of 30/07/1888 relating to contracts or obligations, article 258, 259 and 260. No case referred to. Judgment I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case started in the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent suing HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, claiming to be reimbursed the cost for the treatment of illness and wounds which were due to the hospital’s fault and to be refunded the transport fees spent during the treatment as follows: Tukakira Rugigana Deus 9,607,047Frw, Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 230,025Frw, Mutesi Scola 383,212Frw and Bayitake Angelique 375,879Frw. They also requested damages due to the pain suffered after the injection of lidocaine 2% (anaesthesia)which caused the wounds as follow: Tukakira Rugigana Deus 200,000,000Frw, Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 100,000,000Frw, Mutesi Scola 150,000,000Frw, Bayitake Angelique 150,000,000Frw; for the moral damages, they claim that Tukakira Rugigana Deus be RWANDA LAW REPORTS 30

## Page 214

awarded 100,000,000Frw, Rubagumya Clinton Innocent 50,000,000Frw, Mutesi Scola 50,000,000Frw, Bayitake Angelique 50,000,000Frw; procedural fees and damages for being dragged into lawsuits 3,000,000Frw for Tukakira Rugigana Deus, 1,000,000Frw for Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, 1,000,000Frw for Mutesi Scola, 1,000,000Frw for Bayitake Angelique and lastly Tukakira Rugigana Deus and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent requested to be given 2,992,428Frw, and 160,000Frw respectively for the financial loss they incurred. [2] At the request of HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, SONARWA G.I.CO. Ltd the insurer of HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD and ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd which a supplied lidocaine 2% to HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD were summoned by the Court as warrantors. [3] The Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge found the case of Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent with meritin part, and held that ndlr lidocaine 2% which was injected to Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent caused them health problems and it also held that there was no professional fault committed by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD when it used ndlr lidocaine 2% to treat the plaintiffs, that HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD and SONARWA G.I.CO.Ltd are not liable, therefore, ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd is liable for the damages resulting from ndlr lidocaine 2% injected to Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, the court ordered ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd to pay damages and counsel fees to the plaintiffs as follows: 31 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 215

21,184,153Frw to Tukakira Rugigana Deus; 3,158,106Frw to Rubagumya Clinton Innocent; 4,251,641Frw to Mutesi Scola and 4,224,908Frw to Bayitake Angelique. The Court also ordered ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd to reimburse 4,883,604Frw to HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, futher, it declared that ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd does not deserve damages ; and lastly ordered ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd to refund Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent, 50.000Frw to each for court fees. [4] ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd appealed to the High Court contesting the basis of those damages while Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola and Bayitake Angelique appealed contesting how they were calculated. [5] Issues to be examined in this case : 1. Whether there is a causal link between ndlr lidocaine 2% injection batch CM4032 and negative effects suffered by those who were injected 2. Whether damages should be awarded in this case II. ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES A. Whether there is a causal link between ndlr lidocaine 2% injection batch CM4032 and negative effects suffered by those who were injected [6] The counsel for ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd pleads that the court based its decision on the fact that lidocaine 2% used was substandard quality, but it failed to consider that even if it was true, a causal link between the fault and prejudice RWANDA LAW REPORTS 32

## Page 216

suffered had to be established as it was demonstrated during the hearing but the court disregarded it whereas it was contrary to the general principles as advanced by law scholars1 and it was raised during the hearing. [7] The counsel for ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd states that in the analysis of this issue,the court disregarded with no reasons several evidence presented before it demonstrating that the causal link between the the negative effects suffered by the plaintiffs and lidocaine 2% batch CM4032 which they were injected as an anaesthesia was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.,because the case file at first instance contains a list made by ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd which indicates where that medicine was sold countrywide,which was disregarded by the court, though itwas informed of it because it held that ‟the fact that Viateur Mutanguha, the counsel for ABACUS states that the lidocaine 2% was sold to other clinics and hospitals countrywide without causing negative effects, the court finds that statement without merit since he does not demonstrate where the medicine was used and to whom it was injected”. Therefore, the Court deliberately did not consider the evidence

1https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsabilit%C3%A9_du_fait_des_produits_ de_sant%C3%A9_d%C3%A9fectueux :« afin d’engager la responsabilité du fait d’un produit défectueux, la victime doit prouver la défectuosité du produit, le dommage subi ainsi que le lien de causalité entre la défectuosité du produit et la survenance du dommage. En effet, ce lien de causalité doit être certain…. La preuve du lien de causalité…admet la possibilité de recourir à des présomptions graves, précises et concordantes. Ces présomptions ne seront admises que si trois conditions sont réunies. En premier lieu, le fait doit pouvoir être matériellement une cause génératrice du dommage à l’égard des données acquises de la science. Egalement, il doit être hautement probable que le facteur ait été à l’origine du dommage. Enfin toutes les autres causes de possibles du dommage doivent avoir été exclues » 33 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 217

which was aimed to prove the doubt cast on affirming that the lidocaine 2% batch CM4032 caused negative effects to only 4 people treated in one hospital (Hopital la Croix du Sud) which was supplied only100 fl while that sold in the whole country is 4282 fl de 30ml. [8] After realising that issue which had occured at Hopital la Croix du Sud, in order to prevent the same issue, ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd requested all clinics and hospitals to return back lidocaine 2% batch 4032 bought, but only the hospital of Gitwe returned 50 fl in 69 fl that it had bought and it did not report any negative effect on the patients who were injected with other19fl which appears in its report. Hospital la Croix du Sud bought 100 fl of lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032, but after realizing the issue with that lidocaine 2%, it was also requested to return the remaining vials that were not yet used, but it didn’t, one wonders that may be the remaining vials were used and did not cause any effect to patients. Therefore given the above reasons and legal principles that ‟the same causes produce the same effects”, there is doubt cast on the assertion that lidocaine 2% batch CM 4032 caused negative effects to only 4 patients out of 8564 to whom it may have been injected. [9] The counsel for Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent states that the Court considered the casual link between the seller and user of the lidocaine 2%. It means ABACUS PHARMA LTD must guarranty the safety of its products. If a consummer is harmed by its products, ABACUS PHARMA LTD is held liable. Therefore, they find that the court did not err in its decision of awarding damages because the wounds suffered by RWANDA LAW REPORTS 34

## Page 218

the plaintiffs resulted from the lidocaine 2% injection bought from ABACUS PHARMA LTD. [10] The counsel for Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent argues also that ABACUS PHARMA LTD ackwnoledges that it is the one that sold lidocaine 2% that caused a negative effects to the plaintiffs and after being aware of the safety issue, it immediately recalled that drug in order to prevent its use on other patients; since it admits that it is the one which sold lidocaine 2% that was administered to the patients as anaesthesia and caused negative effects as demonstrated by the photos and medical reports, it implies that it sold unsafe drug. [11] On the assertion that the decision of the Court does not demonstrate the casual link between the injection of lidocaine 2% BATCH CM4032 and the negatives effects caused, the counsel for HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD argues that ABACUS did not bring expert to contradict the reports provided by Rwandan and foreign laboratories so that if necessary that expert can be questioned by the court or cross examined by plaintiffs. Furthermore, the causal link is demonstrated on the first page, section one, whereby all plaintiffs on the first instance state that within a short period after being injected with lidocaine 2%, they experienced negative effects, this demonstrates the causality of the drug injected. Futhermore there are other elements of evidence proving that the anaesthesia injection was not safe as indicated by various reports : 1) The first report dated 15/04/2015 made by the laboratory of University of Rwanda which indicates that in physico- chemical test on the third point called Asssay, the drug has 94.1 while it should be between 95.0% -105.0 %. Thus, the laboratory 35 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 219

concluded that the drug does not meet the required standard. 2) The second report was made by SGS laboratory of waver in Belgium on 19/08/2015 and this laboratory is recognized by WHO (World Health Organization), this is also emphasized by a report of LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICALS company that produced Lidocaine injection 2%, whereby it indicated that BATCH CM4032 sold to ABACUS PHARMA can cause negative effects which includes : allergies and necrosis. Therefore, since even the company that sold the drug declared that it does not meet the required standard, and ABACUS went ahead and bought that drug, it is the one to be held liable. They find all these are corroborative and enough evidence to prove that the drug was defective and that it is the causal link between the wounds and the lidocaine 2% that caused those effects to the plaintiffs at the first instance, this report indicates that the lidocaine 2% is 94.5% while it should be between 95.0% and 105.0%, the report concluded that the drug is ‟failˮ! [12] The Court summoned a specialist in pharmaceutical from the Ministry of Health and Semana Edmond together with legal advisor of that Ministry appeared before the Court, the court also summoned the CEO of HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD appeared together with Kwizera Gad, a laboratory scientist all were summoned to provide information on the Lidocaine injection 2%. [13] Semana Edmond told the court that pharmaceutical depots and health institutions are the only authorized importer of drugs, they have the certificate of origin attesting that its fulfils the required standard and also they have to demonstrate that the manufacturer fulfils the requirements to manufacture drugs; he further stated that there is a list of drugs authorized in RWANDA LAW REPORTS 36

## Page 220

Rwanda, and when drugs are brought into the country the supplier is allowed to sell at retail to, health institutions, once the drug is in their stock, doctors can prescribe it to the patients. Besides that all those how are involved in that chain must take good care of the drug and kept at the required temperature, lest it gets spoilt, well, they must also keep a record indicating the origin of the drugs in purposely to trace their origin in case of any problem. Regarding the procedure of recalling the drug he explained that when it is reported that a drug has caused a negative effect it immediately ceases to be prescribed to patients, and they trace its origin and call the importer, and ask him where he supplied it and where it caused those negative effects and the causes. [14] Semana Edmond further explained that the Ministry was informed of the negative effects caused by Lidocaine injection 2%, where it happened and where it was bought, then the Ministry visited that hospital where that issue was reported and suspended that batch number from the market, it also suspended the use that drug. He added that in Rwanda the authorized drugs are those of Pharmacopoeia 5: USP (US Pharmacopoeia), BP (British Pharmacopoeia), European Pharmacopoeia, JP (Japanese Pharmacopoeia), Pharmacopoeia international. In case of testing the drug, they have to check the register, that is, if the drug is BP the testing will be conducted in accordance with the registrer of British Pharmacopoeia. In addition if they find the drug with a defect it is permentaly removed from the market and all is done after carring out enough examinations. [15] Semana Edmond explains that in regard to the quality of drugs, a the drug meets the required standards or is below or above the standard of the manufacturer or of the 37 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 221

Pharmacopoeia, that a drug which is below or above the set standards of the Pharmacopoeia then that drug is defective, and if the colour is not the same it also implies that it is defective. And furthermore, there is the quality which can be ordinary observed and that which requires to first be tested. But in Rwanda there is no laboratories to examine the quality of drugs. The equipments used to dispense the drugs must also be examined if they meet the the required standard. [16] Semana Edmond was asked what happens when a lincenced pharmaceutical importer brings defective drugs, and he responded that those various categories which deal in drugs are the ones liable, however the first category to be held liable is the one from whom that damage occurs often they request to burn those drugs. Pharmaceutical depots are usually inspected first, scrutinizing the certificate and the batch number, because a manufacturing company can supply the same drug to various places but each with its own batch number, then they determine whether it is the pharmacy or hospital to be held liable. Semana Edmond was asked the opinion of the Ministry of Health on Lidocaine injection 2%, he replied that they only went to Hopital la croix du sud because it is the only place where that issue occurred, there was no other complaint in other places where that that batch was supplied. Semana Edmond was again asked as a ministry of health, when they requested that Lidocaine injection 2% be examined whether it was examined in accordance to the pharmacopoeia or not, he replied that the requested expertise should have been conducted in accordance with pharmacopoeia, but unfortunately it was not the case. [17] Counsel Gumisiriza states that the Ministry of Health called for an examination of Lidocaine injection 2% which RWANDA LAW REPORTS 38

## Page 222

caused the health problems. But he wonders what the Ministry did when it realized that the expertises were not conducted in accordance to pharmacopoeia. [18] Counsel Mutanguha states that the Ministry of Health, at the request of HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, asked laboratories to carry out the examination, and it was the employee of that hospital who requested the use of the British Pharmacopoeia, if they did not notice which Pharmacopoeia used, that is negligence. It is groundless doubting the methods used by the experts by alleging that the expertise was carried out basing on USP (US Pharmacopoeia) while the drug was produced basing on BP (British Pharmacopoeia). [19] Counsel Muhozi Paulin prays to the court to hear the testimony of Kwizera Gad an employee in the laboratory who participated in all expertises, so that his statements can corroborated with those of the representantive of the Ministry of Health. [20] Kwizera Gad, an employee of the Hopital la croix du sud, who is pursuing his masters in Pharmacology, explained that it is the hospital that communicated on the issue, the Ministry of Health instructed them to carry out an expertise,it gave them the laboratories from where it could be carried out, they first requested the expertise to be carried out in Africa: Uganda, Kenya, South Africa and those of Suitzerland and France,but they all replied that they were not ready to conduct the expertise even though their laboratories are accredited by WHO. He further states that the hospital requested that the expertise be based on British Pharmacopoeia because it is the one written on the drug, but it was told that an experise can be carried out basing on the US Pharmacopoeia even thought the 39 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 223

drugs were produced basing on British Pharmacopoeia. And also, the laboratory of Butare and that of Belgium advised them to use US Pharmacopoeia. [21] Kwizera Gad goes on stating that it depended on the methods used in administering that drug those who were injected in superficial method got ngative effects he added that there is also another drug bought by CAMERWA which also caused negative effects to extent that some patients died. Even when a drug meets the required standards it has to continuously to be followed up. In addition to that, he explains that there is a hospital near by where Lidocaine injection 2% was administered on the patient’s eye and he suffered negatives effects, he notes that the Ministry of health needs to put more emphasis on pharmaco vigilance. There are 60 vials of the drugs which caused those effects kept purposely to continue carring out more examinations, because the parts on which it was injected would be burnt and would turn whitishand again the person injecting that drug would change and use another vial whenever the patient told told him or her that he is feeling pain and again he felt the pain even after using another vial and moreover those who were injecting the patients are trained doctors. [22] The CEO of HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD, Nyirinkwaya Jean Chrysostome, explained they bought lidocaine 2% in February, which was injected to patients and felt the pain, after identifying the issue, they immediately reported it to the Ministry of Health to avoid the same issue in other hospitals. They went to Butare to examine that drug, they found a Lidocaine with defect and other which meet the required standard, and apparently are different, then the RWANDA LAW REPORTS 40

## Page 224

Ministry of Health ordered them to go to make a test of the drug in other laboratories, hence, they went to Belgium, Kenya and South Africa, the results were similar to those of the laboratory of Butare. Moreover, they bought 2 lots of the lidocaine 2% but they only used a half of the one with a defect. [23] Counsel Mutanguha states that HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD did not return all lots it bought, and that Safari is still working in the hospital while he was not allowed to treat his wife. In addition, a nurse who examined Rugigana declared that when he urinates, he felt pain at the head of penis. [24] Counsel Muhozi states that Safari was the head of the emergency service, it would be diverging to talk about professional fault while the issue is the drug administered. [25] Dr Nyirinkwaya argues that the arguments of counsel Mutanguha are not relevant to the issue of the drug. [26] Counsel Rutagengwa states that the examination of Lidocaine carried out in Butare and Belgium, but he wonders how the experts could get the real result by using a wrong formula, he adds on that Abacus Pharma knows the truth, but it is just being in different; and it alsowrote to the company that manufactured the drug; he wonders how the company contradict itself and declares that its drug was defective. [27] Counsel Gumisiriza submits that there is no doubt that SGS has the capacity to detect a defective drug, even if other laboratories conduct the test, they can refuse to recognize them while ABACUS and LA CROIX DU SUD had already agreed that the lidocaine 2% may be defective ; that ABACUS should not state that the expertise done by manifacturer laboratory is 41 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 225

the one which is right because the latter does everything to match the drug with the requirements. He further argues that the claim that there is no evidence to prove that the negative effects was caused by drug is baseless because when the patient complained that was feeling the pain instead of being numb when injected. Therefore, they find that the liability orginates from the drug at hand which caused injuries. Besides, the drug has expired and cannot be tested in laboratory. [28] Counsel Mutanguha states that ABACUS PHARMA affirms Lidocaine BP 2% that it meet the required standard, it does not also agree with those who say that they got health problems caused by injection of that drug because the tests which were conducted had a lot of flaws because they did not follow the proper standards as explained above .and there is no concrete evidence to prove that those negative effects were caused by Lidocaine BP 2%. [29] Counsel Muhozi states that Abacus Pharma should have demonstrated that it criticized those reports from the beginning, thus, he requests the court to consider those reports since Abacus has its headquarters in India, it is not understable how it can come to contradict the reports made by the Ministry of Health. VIEW OF THE COURT [30] According to article 3 of the Law relating to evidence and its production provides that each party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges. According to article 9 of the law same law provides that an evidence based on legal issues or on fact can be proved by use of written evidences, testimony, RWANDA LAW REPORTS 42

## Page 226

presumption or circumstancial evidence, admission of a part or any other material evidence. [31] In accordance with article 258 of the Law 30 july 1888 establishing civil code (CCBIII) provides that any act or omission by man that causes another injury, requires that the former, due to the wrongly act commited, to repair it. [32] In accordance with article 259 of the Law of 30 July 1888 establishing civil code book (CCBIII) provides that a person is not only liable for his acts, but also for his negligence [33] The court finds that the party which claims for damages for the prejudice suffered must prove the causal link between the prejudice and the fault commited. [34] The court finds that Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent sued for damages resulting from the wounds sustained when they were injected with ndlr lidocaine 2% by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD The court finds that HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD demonstrated that there was no proffessional fault on its part when it was treating Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent because the sickness and wounds were caused by ndlr lidocaine 2% injection which they bought from ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd. The Court also finds that ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd acknowldges that it is one which supplied ndlr lidocaine 2% injection to HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD which was administered to Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent. 43 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 227

[35] The court finds that the medical report issued by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD on 25/05/2015 indicates that on 22/02/2015 Rubagumya Innocent, born in 1995 went for a nail surgery of ingrown toe nail of the right big toe whereby he was injected an anaesthesia of Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2% on the toe of the right foot, thereafter he experienced a toe ache (necrose cutanee avec oedeme du pied), they thought the ache was caused by the anaesthesia injection and this was confirmed by the laboratories that examined that drug. [36] The court finds that the medical report issued by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD on 25/05/2015, Bayitake Angelique, born in 1979, went for the treatment (ablation de Kyste sebacé thoracique anterieur) to that hospital and an anaesthesia lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2% was administered to her and she felt tremendous pain on the part of the body which had to be treated (necrose du site d’infiltration par l’infirmier et le dermatologue) to the extent that she received treatment for 2 days, they thought the ache was caused by the anaesthesia injection and this was confirmed by the laboratories that examined that drug. [37] The court finds that the medical report issued by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD on 25/05/2015, indicates that on 21/02/2015, Tukakira Rugigana Deus, born in 1983, went there requesting for circumcision, for that reason he was injected an anaesthesia (Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2%) and traeted, he was given an appointment to return to the hospital on 24/02/2015, on that day they found that his prepuce had been affected (a dry necrosis of the prepuce).They thought it was caused by the anaesthesia injected on him and this was confirmed by a laboratory that tested that lidocaine 2%. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 44

## Page 228

[38] The court finds that the medical report issued by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD on 25/05/2015, indicates that on 20/02/2015 Mutesi Scola,born in 1985, went for the treatment (removal of subcutaneous hormonal implant in the left arm) to that hospital and an anaesthesia lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2% was administered to her and she felt tremendous pain on the part of the body which had to be treated (necrose seche cutanee localisee) to the extent that she received treatment for 2 days, they thought the ache was caused by the anaesthesia injection and this was confirmed by the laboratories that examined that drug. [39] He finds that the report issued on 15/04/2015 by the University of Rwanda indicates that lidocaine 2% (Batch No.CM4032 LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICAL, INDIA) did not meet the required standard2, and it is that was injected on

2University of Rwanda, college of Medicine and health sciences laboratory of analysis of foods, drugs, water and toxics, reports analysis: conclusions: “ parameters that been analyzed are the pH, identification and assay, bacterial endotoxins, sterility test and research of impurities, following conclusions are be made: the pH is normal, there is no presence of bacterial endotoxins, sterility is negative and results are given in annex I of this report. Chromatographic analysis of Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2% (Batch No.CM4032 LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICAL, INDIA) both concentrated and diluted samples reveal impurities which are normally present when comparing with Lidocaine injection BP 2% samples from other manufactures. The UV spectrum has been found but we are unable to identify which molecule he is. We suggest that the client to send (submit) to other laboratories for further identification with advanced technique like IR or NMR. Chromatographic analyses of Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2% (Batch No. E0889, MAC’S PHARMACETICAL. Nairobi, KENYA) both concentrated and diluted samples reveal the presence of a second excipient Propyl Paraben in the product which it presence is not labelled or indicated in the vial of Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2%; The UV spectrum and the retention time of 45 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 229

Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent. [40] The Court finds that the report issued by SGS (Life science services) on 19/08/2015 also indicates that ndlr lidocaine 2% (identification: No.CM4032) was defective3 . And it is the same drug which was injected to Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent. [41] The Court finds that the reports presented are proofs attesting that ndlr lidocaine 2% (Batch No.CM4032 LINCOLN PHARMACEUTICAL, INDIA) which was injected to Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola, Bayitake Angelique and Rubagumya Clinton Innocent was defective. [42] The Court finds that the medical legal report issued by King Faisal hospital Kigali indicates that: Mutesi Schola has incapacity of 8%4; Tukakira Rugigana Deus has of incapacity

Propyl Paraben containing the sample match with those of reference standard. We recommend the client not to use it without ensuring that it can adverse effect to patients (not conform to Lidocaine HCI injection B.P 2%). As requested by the client, research, identification, assay and research of impurities has been done. However, these impurities have not been identified due to lack more advanced techniques of detection” 3SGS, CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS, Product: Lidocaine Hydrochloride Injection, USP, identification: CM4032, Qty Rec’d : 7, received date : 24/7/2015. “The residue obtained responds to identification test A under Lidocaine: pass. Test: pH, Method: USP <791>, specification: 5.0 -7.0, result: 6.6, status: pass. Test: Assay, Method: USP, specification: 95 -105.0 % LC, result: mg found 20.1mg/ml, Assay 94.5 % LC, status: fail. 4 her inability to work is estimated at 2 months and the permanent incapacity is evaluated at 8%. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 46

## Page 230

estimated at 30%5 while Rubagumya Clinton Innocent his incapacity is at 3%6. [43] The court finds that the arguments of ABACUS Pharma that the test was erroneous because it did not follow the standards of pharamacopeia are baseless, because those reports were made on the request of the Ministry of health and ABACUS Pharma did not object to them, nor demonstrate to the Ministry of health what it object in those report even the ministry of health did not raise an objection against that those report. [44] In accordance to article 260 of the third book of the the civil code, which provides that one is responsible not only for the damage one causes by one’s own act, but also for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom one is responsible or things which one has under one’s care. [45] The court finds that ABACUS Pharma that is liable for the negative effects caused by Lidocaine HCI injectable BP 2% which it sold to Hopital La croix du Sud, which the experts indicated it was defective, it caused negative effects to the patients who went for treatment in Hopital la croix du sud, who later on sued in previous Court. Therefore, the court finds that

5 “Erectile dysfunction due to the initial extensive penile skin necrosis, the subsenquent multiple surgeries and penile curvature. The sexual incapacity is evaluated at 80% today. The permanent physical incapacity is estimated to 30%. NB: the definitive sexual and physical incapacity will be most accurately estimated after additional corrective plastic surgery for penile curvature as suggested by the treating plastic surgeon.” 6 “ his inability to work is estimated at 45 days and the permanent incapacity is evaluated at 3% ». 47 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 231

there is no error committed by the previous Court in deciding that Abacus Pharma is liable. B. Concerning the requested damages a. Assessment of the amount of moral damages to be awarded in this case [46] The Counsel for Mutesi Scola state that basing on photos which indicate the pain suffered and its effects, she had requested for 150,000,000Frw. He was astonished for the Court to hold that, it was excessive, they failed to find the Court’s basis for awarding only 3,000,000Frw. They request the High Court to award all requested damages amounting 150,000,000Frw. [47] The counsel for Bayitake Angelique state that that basing on photos which indicate the pain suffered and its effects, she had requested for 150,000,000Frw. He was astonished for the Court to hold that, it was excessive, they failed to find the Court’s basis for awarding only 3,000,000Frw. They request the High Court to award all requested damages amounting 150,000,000Frw. [48] The Counsel for Tukakira Rugigana Deus state that considering the pain suffered as indicated on the photos, would have led the court to award him all the damages claimed. They pray that the High Court awards all the damages requested. [49] The Counsel for ABACUS PHARMA RWANDA Ltd states that the Court awarded damages without tangible evidence, the Court awarded them basing only on the photos produced by the defendants to indicate the pain and wounds suffered. Also, the photos neither indicate the time, place they RWANDA LAW REPORTS 48

## Page 232

were taken, nor the person who took them so that they can be considered as tangible evidence, as provided for by article 122 of the law relating to evidence and its production. [50] The counsel for Hopital La croix du Sud state that there is no standard measurement of the pain, it is the reason why the Court should base its decision on tangible evidence produced by the plaintifs and in the Court’s discretion regarding the recent photos, they may not be real as they are not accompanied by a doctor’s report, another evidence which can be based on is the medical report. VIEW OF THE COURT [51] According to article 258 of the Law 30 july 1888 establishing civil code (CCLIII) provides that any act or omission by man that causes another injury, requires that the former, due to the wrongly act commited, to repair it. [52] In accordance to with article 260 of the third book of the the civil code, which provides that one is responsible not only for the damage one causes by one’s own act, but also for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom one is responsible or things which one has under one’s care; it is. [53] The Court finds that the reports provided by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD demonstrated by the plaintiffs got health problems as result of lidocaine 2% as also demonstrated by the reports from King Faysal Hospital. Regarding the amount of damages in this case, there is no specific Law regarding their calculation, therefore, they are calculated at the discretion of the Court.The court finds that the claimants for damages did not 49 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 233

demonstrate the basis of the amount of the damages they request for, even in their appeal they did not demonstrate why the damages awarded to them should be increased. Therefore the lower Court did not err in calculation of damages it awarded. C. Whether HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD should pay damages for neglecting the defendants [54] The Counsel for Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola and Bayitake Angelique state that HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD should be held liable for having neglected its clients who are the plaintiffs in this case because it should have followed up and treat them before spending time trying to establish the cause. The hospital la CROIX DU SUD should pay the claimed damages by the plaintiffs for neglecting them because thier sickness was caused by the Hospital, it is after the injection that they suffered from its negative effects. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD should pay these damages for neglecting its patients because, even before the Ministry of health was informed of the issue which happened in the Hopital CROIX DU SUD, and before taking the drug for testing in the laboratories and even informing ABACUS PHARMA Ltd about the drug it sold, they should have been treated first. The fact that the hospital did nothing, while the plaintiffs were running everywhere seeking for treatment without enough means, the hospital did not inform them what it was doing about it, for them to have courage, so they find that the hospital should be held liable for neglecting its patients and pay the damages for that as follows : Tukakira- 100,000,000Frw, Mutesi Scola- 50,000,000Frw and Bayitake Angelique-50,000,000Frw. [55] In its defense, Hopital la croix du Sud argues that that after knowing the problem the patients got, it carried out an RWANDA LAW REPORTS 50

## Page 234

investigation and its findings were used as evidence that the court relied on, those evidence was found on the expense of the Hospital as it is evident on the page 6 paragraph 15 of the judgement copy, there are 3 elements of evidence prooving that the drug was the cause of the plantiffs’s health problems and no due to professional fault. VIEW OF THE COURT [56] According to article 258 of the Law of 30 July 1888 establishing the civil code book III (CCBIII) provides that any act or omission by man that causes another injury, requires that the former, due to the wrongly act commited, to repair it. [57] The Courts finds that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any professional fault on the part of Hopital la Croix du Sud, because as indicated above, it is ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd that was held liable because of its drug which caused the negative effects to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the damages requested from the hospital are irrelevant, the previous Court did not err in deciding that the hospital was not liable. D. Concerning procedural and counsel fees [58] The Counsel for ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd states that they claim for procedural fee of 500,000Frw, counsel fee of 1,000,000Frw and moral damages of 2,000,000Frw and 3,000,000Frw for libel and being dragged into uncessary lawsuit. [59] The counsel for HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD state that they lodge a cross-appeal basing on article 167 CPCCSA, they request the court to order Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi 51 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 235

Scola and Bayitake Angelique to pay 200,000Frw for procedural fee and 1,000,000Frw for counsel fees. [60] The Counsel for Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola and Bayitake Angelique request the Court to order the respondents to reimburse them Court fees, counsel and procedural fees. VIEW OF THE COURT [61] The court finds that ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd does not deserve damages because its appeal has no merit. The Court finds that the damages claimed by HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD against Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola and Bayitake Angelique should not be awarded because it is their right to appeal. The damages claimed by Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola and Bayitake Angelique should not also be awarded because their appeal lacks merit. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [62] Admits the appeal lodged by Tukakira Rugigana Deus, Mutesi Scola and Bayitake Angelique, upon its examination, it finds it with no merit. [63] The Court admits the appeal lodged by ABACUS Pharma Rwanda Ltd, after its examination, but it finds it with no merit. [64] The judgment RC0828/15/TGI/NYGE rendered on 03/06/2016 by the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge is sustained. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 52

## Page 236

[65] Declares that the Court fees deposited by the appellants is equivalent to the costs of the case 53 TUKAKIRA ET AL v. HOPITAL LA CROIX DU SUD ET AL

## Page 238

COMMERCIAL CASES

## Page 240

FOREST COMPANY VOLCANOES GORILLAS (FCVG) LTD v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA 00055/2016/SC (Kayitesi Z. P.J., Mutashya and Karimunda, J.) 29 September 2017] Tax law – Value added tax – Income tax – The advance payment given to the successful bidder to begin the work, is exempted from taxes because it is not considered as a paymen – Law Nº37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing value added tax article 10 – Law Nº12/2007 of 27/03/2007 on public procurement, article 86. Facts: Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd was audited by Rwanda Revenue for the year of 2011,2012 and 2013, consequently was ordered to pay without notice various taxes which include income tax, value added tax, withholding tax not paid and was ordered to pay for penalties and interests equivalent to 125,737,718Frw. FCVG appealed against that decision to Commissionner General who responded that its appeal has merit in part and decided to deduct 20,186,699Frw of withholding tax of 15% from the tax it was charged, because it was supported with evidence. Thus, it pays tax equal to 105,551,109Frw. FCVG Ltd not satisfied with that decision, filed a case in Nyarugenge Commercial Court requesting that, no value added tax (VAT) should be charged on advance payment of 90,876,120Frw received in 2012, that the advance payment of 57

## Page 241

52,665,710Frw received in 2012 should not be includedin tax base on which to charge the fine for not registering for VAT. That, it should be penalised at the rate of 50%, that the advance payment received in 2012 should be deducted from the revenue on which the income tax should be charged, that, the income tax of 2011,2012 and 2013 should be computed at the profit margin of 3%; it prays the Court to order Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) to pay counsel fee of 3,000,000Frw. The Court decided that its claim has no merit, that the advance payment given by the governement of Rwanda to FCVG Ltd is in its possession, thus, the governement could not pay tax on its behalf instead it is business person who has to pay for himself, then the Court decided that it should pay income tax on the advance payment it got, and penalities for tax evasion. It also ordered FCVG to pay procedural fee to RRA. FCVG Ltd unsatisfied with that decision, appealed before Commercial High Court arguing that the value added tax cannot be charged on advance payment because it is not a payment and some issues contained in its claim were not examined by the previous Court. After examination of the appeal, the Court decided that the appeal has no merit because it found that FCVG Ltd issued an invoice for advance payment it received with VAT inclusive and the penalties imposed due to tax evasion were based on the law governing taxation without notice.FCVG Ltd was not satisfied with that decision and appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that, the Commercial High Court held that, VAT should be charged from the advance payment because it was included on invoice which is not true, that the penalities should be calculated on the rate of 50% instead of 100% basing on the principle of independence of the fiscal year, that the advance RWANDA LAW REPORTS 58

## Page 242

payment is excluded from the revenue on which the income tax is charged, it also requested the Court to order that it should be taxed on the same rate as the business people who carry out the same activities. RRA argues that, the advance payment which is exempted is that one given on construction works which is not the case for FCVG Ltd. It explains also that, if FCVG Ltd thought that it should not be charged value added tax it would have separated its invoices of the tender it has been awarded from those of advance payment, but this was not the case, instead the invoices for advance payment which FCVG Ltd issued to MINAGRI included VAT and was given that tax, but it does not want to give it to the tax administration. Held: 1. The advance payment given to the successful bidder to begin the work, is exempted from taxes because it is not considered as a payment, therefore the fact that FCVG ltd included taxable and non taxable items on invoices it issued, is not enough basis to charge it tax on advance payment while this is not taxable item according to the provisions of the Law. 2. Construction works provided by the Law are not the only ones exempted for tax charged on advance payment because construction works were mentioned as an example, thus advance payment given to any successful bidder for any tender is exempted for taxes. 3. Advance payment is not included in the revenue on which the fine for not registering for value added tax is charged. because it is not part of the turnover or the profits of the successful bidder. 4. The income tax should be computed at a profit margin of 21% which is indicated in both tax declaration and in its bank 59 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 243

statement because the appellant failed to provide its books of accounts or those for the company it compares itself with. 5. When there is evidence which prove that the taxpayer made a tax declaration with the intention of evading tax, he/she is charged a fine of hundred per cent (100%) of the tax evaded. 6. Counsel and procedural fee are not awarded when both parties lost in part. Appeal has merit in part. Judgment RCOMA00184/2016/CHC/HCC is reversed in part. Court fees are bone by both parties. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015, article 164. Law No37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax article 10. Law No12/2007 of 27/03/2007 on public procurement, article 87 and 89. Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures as modified and complimented to date, article 10, 45, 60, 63 and 64. Law N o16/2005 of 18/08/2005 on direct taxes on income, article 16 and 37. Law No06/2001 of 20/01/2001 establishing value added tax articles 12 and 16. Cases reffered to: RWANDA LAW REPORTS 60

## Page 244

Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) v. Rubare Josias, RCOMA0149/12/CS rendered by Supreme Court on 11/03/2016. Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) v. Misigaro Louis, RCOMA0074/11/CS rendered by Supreme Court on 11/04/2014. Authors cited: Yvon Colson, Le principe de légalité de l’impôt et l’interprétation des lois fiscales, Pacoli No327, 2011, p.2. Judgment I. BACKROUND OF THE CASE [1] Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd was audited for taxes of 2011, 2012, and 2013, and was charged taxes and penalties of 125,737,718Frw. FCVG Ltd not satisfied by that conclusion of auditors, it appealed to Commissionner General, who replied on 08/10/2012, informing that it’s appeal has merit with regarding withholding tax of 15% equal to 1,293,537Frw for which it produced evidence, decided that 20,186,699Frw be deducted from the tax it was charged, and consequently pay 105,551,109Frw. [2] FCVG Ltd not satisfied with that decision, it filed a claim to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge requesting that : a. There is no VAT which should be charged on advance payment (avance de démarrage) of 90.876.120 Frw for 2012 ; 61 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 245

b. Advance payment of 52.665.710 Frw for the year 2012 should not be among the income to be fined for not registering for VAT c. FCVG Ltd should be penalised at the rate of 50% instead of 100% ; d. Income tax should not be charged from advance payment received by FCVG Ltd in 2012.; e. Income tax of 2011,2012 and 2013 should be computed at the interest rate of 3% ; f. The Court should order Rwanda Revenue Authority to pay Counsel fee equal to 3.000.000 Frw. [3] In judgment RCOM1574/15/TC/NYGE rendered on 24/03/2016, the Court found the advance payment which the government of Rwanda gave to FCVG Ltd is in its possession, thus, the government could not pay tax on its behalf instead the business person pays taxes for him/her self basing on the provisions of article 29 of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure as modified and complemented to date, and it decided that, FCVG Ltd should pay income tax on advance payment it received and even penalities for not paying tax, thus it’s claim has no merit, and ordered to pay RRA 500,000Frw for procedural fee. [4] FCVG Ltd not contented with that decision, appealed in Commercial High Court arguing that VAT could not be charged on advance payment because it is not a payment and there are some issues which were not examined by Commercial Court. [5] In the judgment RCOMA00184/2016/CHC/HCC rendered on 29/07/2016, the Court found that FCVG Ltd issued RWANDA LAW REPORTS 62

## Page 246

invoices for advance payment with VAT inclusive and the penalities imposed for tax evasion were based on the law governing taxation without notice, and it decided that those invoices are enough evidence to charge it tax because that advance payment was no longer a loan, thus, the appealed judgment is sustained. [6] FCVG Ltd was not satisfied with that decision, and appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that : a) The Commercial High Court held that VAT should be charged on advance payment because it was included on invoices which is not true because the precedent of the Supreme Court case RCOMA0074/11/CS rendered on 11/04/2014 provides that the advance payment is refundable in whole including VAT and A withholding tax of 3% charged on it ; b) The commercial High Court declared that the VAT should be charged on advance payment because it was included on invoices but it did not demonstrate whether the invoices based on to penalise FCVG Ltd also included that tax, if there is a fault committed in 2012 there is no reason to be penalised for even other years this means that the penalities should be computed at the rate of 50% instead of 100% basingon the principle of independence of fiscal year ; c) If this Court decides that VAT is not charged on advance payment, because it is not a payment, it should also decide that advance payment should be deducted from the revenue on which the income tax is charged. d) In computing income tax, the tax administration, compared FCVG Ltd to other similar business, and 63 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 247

calculated the profits at the rate of 21% and being aware that a company called Coocaster Ltd which deals in the same business, declared the profit of 1% in 2011, 6% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, which makes the average of 3% which was also declared by FCVG Ltd. [7] The hearing was scheduled on 20/06/2017 but it did not take place on that day because RRA had not yet paid civil fine it was charged in another case, the hearing was postponed to 28/06/2017. That day the hearing was conducted in public, FCVG Ltd represented by Counsel NSENGIYUMVA Abel while RRA was represented by Counsel BYIRINGIRO Bajeni. [8] At the beggining of the hearing, Counsel Byiringiro Bajeni informed the Court that he has abandoned the objection of lack of jurisdiction of this Court that he had raised basing on the fact that FCVG Ltd lost the case for the same grounds in both previous Courts because he found that it is not true. [9] The Court ordered RRA to demonstrate whether the taxpayer called COOCASTER carries the same activities as FCVG Ltd and to know on which profit rate it was taxed, the hearing was postponed to 12/07/2017, so that the parties could debate on those information. That day the hearing was conducted in public, parties represented as earlier and the hearing was also closed.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 64

## Page 248

II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES II.1. whether the value added tax and income tax are charged on advance payment. [10] Councel Nsengiyumva Abel aduces that, on 12/09/2012, FCVG Ltd was given by the ministry of agriculture (MINAGRI) an advance payment of 42,815,120Frw and on 12/10/2012 it was given another one of 48,061,400Frw. He explains that RRA considered that advance payment as a payment for the work done, and it appealed against that decision to Commissionner General, who also upheld it as indicated on page 5,6 and 9 of his decision, When it took the case to Commercial High Court, this Court also held that the advance payment it received is a payment which should be taxed. He adds that, the Court based it’s decision on the fact that FCVG Ltd erred and included tax on invoices it issued to MINAGRI, but it disregarded the issue brought before it of determining whether the advance payment is taxed. He states that the advance payment was thoroughly explained by this Court in the case of RRA v. Misigaro Louis,1 whereby it held that it is not a payment because it is refunded to the government whether the execution of the concerned tender is completed or not, for that reason he prays the Court to sustain its precedent, and declare that VAT and income tax are not charged on 90,876,520Frw. [11] Councel Byiringiro Bajeni states that the Law clearly provides that the advance payment which is exempted for tax is that one for construction works which is not the case for FCVG Ltd. He explains that if FCVG Ltd finds that it was exempted

1 see case RCOMA0074/11/CS of Rwanda revenue Authority v. Misigaro Louis, rendered by the Supreme Court on 11/04/2014. 65 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 249

from value added tax it would have separated its invoices of the tender it has been awarded from those of advance payment but this is not the case, instead the invoices of advance payment it issued to MINAGRI that tax was inclusive and consequently was given it, but it does not want to pay it to the tax administration, reason why he finds that, the motivations provided by this Court regarding advance payment in the case of RRA v. Misigaro Louis cannot be useful because the subject matter is different as Misigaro Louis was pursued for not withholding that tax on invoices of advance payment he issued. VIEW OF THE COURT [12] Article 12, paragraph one of the Law No06/2001 of 20/01/2001 instituting value added tax which was into force when FCVG Ltd was given advance payment provides that goods or services are taxed […] When goods are done for cost by the taxpayer who registered himself, his partner or his employee […] while article 16, paragraph one provides that the taxed value for any good or service is determined […] as follows : a) except otherwise provided by this Law, the taxed value for goods and service, it is their cost paid in cash or other means of payment. [13] Article 87 of the Law No12/2007 of 27/03/2007 governing public procurement which was into force when FCVG Ltd was given advance payment provides that the advance payment shall not exceed twenty per cent (20 %) of the price of the tender and shall be paid upon submission by the successful bidder to the procuring entity of an advance payment security equivalent to the advance itself. That security shall be given by a bank or any authorized financial institution. Whereas RWANDA LAW REPORTS 66

## Page 250

article 89 of the Law No12/2007 of 27/03/2007 governing public procurement which was into force when FCVG Ltd was given advance payment provides that the advance received by the successful bidder shall be refunded by deducting a certain amount from submitted and approved invoices. The bidding document shall determine the percentage to be deducted until the whole amount of the advance is refunded. The advance security shall be returned to the successful bidder within thirty (30) days following the payment of the entire advance received. [14] Article 16 of the Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 of direct tax on income provides that business profit is determined as the income from all business activities reduced by all business expenses. Business profit also includes proceeds of sale of any business asset and liquidation proceeds received during the tax period. Whereas article 37 of the same Law provides that corporate income tax is levied on business profits received by entities. [15] The case file contains a document titled “Invoice of Advance No01/RSSP/10/2012 issued on 24/10/2012 by FCVG Ltd requesting a payment of 48,061,400Frw which includes VAT of 18% equivalent to 7,331,400Frw and withholding tax of 3% equivalent to 1,221,900Frw, on the payroll displaying the money paid to FCVG Ltd, it is clear that it was paid the sum equivalent to 112,428,925Frw, the value added tax was equivalent to 11,944,489Frw while the withholding tax of 3% was equivalent to 1,990,748Frw, however it is obvious that 48,061,400Frw of advance payment paid on 09/11/2012, VAT or withholding were not charged on it. [16] The case file also contains the document titled invoice No2-06/12/2011 issued on 06/12/2011 requesting payment for 67 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 251

the second installment of the advance payment of 6,506,528Frw, that installment is for september 2011to february 2012, that money was paid on 06/01/2012, the payroll does not indicate that there was tax levied on that money. (Identification mark 24). [17] The Court finds that, what is taxed on works is its cost whether it is paid in cash or other means of payment, this implies that, after completing the execution of the tender it was awarded, the taxpayer issues an invoice to his procuring entity indicating the cost of the works he completed, therefore, he declares the tax of the payment he received basing on that cost. [18] The Court finds that, as it was so decided in the case of RRA v. Misigaro Louis2 and was also emphasized in the case of RRA v.Rubare Josias,3 the advance payment, it is money which is given out to a successiful bidder so that he can commence to execute the tender he was awarded, this means that there is no part of a given work he is paid for, so that it can be considered as a payment, rather as the successfull bidder keeps on requesting for payment of works done and he deducts a given amount of advance agreed by the contracting parties , thus, he is completly paid for all works done with refunding thewhole advance to the procuring entity, therefore, it can not be refunded to the procuring entity, and be considered at same time as a payment to that tender.

2 Case RCOMA0074/11/CS of Rwanda revenue Authority v. Misigaro Louis, rendered by the Supreme Court on 11/04/2014, paragraph 18-20. 3 Case RCOMA0149/12/CS of Rwanda Revenue Authority v. Rubare Josias, rendered by the Supreme Court on 11/03/2016, paragraph 15 and 16. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 68

## Page 252

[19] The Court finds that the procuring entity has legal obligations to follow up the use of the advance payment if it finds that it is not used in relation to the tender awarded, it can be considered as a loan and it is entitled to seize the provided guaranty so that it can get be paid, whereas the advance is used and refunded properly, the procuring entity releases the guaranty within a period of thirty days (30) from the date the whole advance was refunded to the procuring entity, this also emphasizes that the statment of RRA has no merit since it argues that the advance is a payment, because if it is a payment, it means that it will remain in the possesssion of the successiful bidder rather than to be refunded to the procuring entity. [20] The Court finds further that, the general principle which govern tax Laws in Rwanda is that tax is established, modified or repealed by the law, and also can be exempted or reduced in procedures provided by the Law, also, the Constitution4 emphasizes this principle so that, the tax be established by a competent organ and known earlier by the taxpayer who is aware of the taxes he owes to tax administration.5 Thus, the fact that FCVG Ltd based on the provisions of article 89 of the Law No12/2007 of 27/03/2007 mentioned above providing that ‟the advance received by the successful bidder shall be refunded by deducting a certain amount from submitted and approved invoicesˮ, and it issued invoices whereby it mentioned taxables

4 « Tax is imposed, modified or removed by law. No exemption or reduction of a tax can be granted unless authorised by law. » article 164 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015. 5« Cette interdiction vise à garantir au citoyen que l’impôt qu’il doit payer a été mis en place exclusivement par une institution qu’il a élue. Le citoyen est donc en droit de savoir à l’avance la hauteur des prélèvements qu’il va devoir subir. » see Yvon Colson, « Le principe de légalité de l’impôt et l’interprétation des lois fiscales » in Pacoli no 327, 2011, p.2. 69 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 253

and no taxable items, this is not enough to held it liable for tax on advance payment since that advance is not provided by the Law as taxable items. Thus, the advance of 90,876,520Frw which Minagri gave to FCVG Ltd can not be charged value added tax. [21] The Court finds also that the provisions of article 10, paragraph one, Litera 2, of the Law No37/2012 of 09/11/2012 establishing the value added tax provides that […] the taxation period for the supply of goods and services shall be the one that is the earliest amomg the following : the date on which payment of goods and sevices, including a partial payment is made. 1o[…], 2o However this paragraph does not concern the advance payment made to the contractors who later re-imburse it by deducting it from the invoces presented to the client; this also,emphasizes that the advance payment is not a payment, instead, this article recalls the principle that, what is taxed is a payment whether for work done or items bought in whole or in part, and when it is read together with article 87 and 89 of the Law No12/2007 of 27/03/2007 mentioned above, provide in general for any advance payment or an advance given to a successiful bidder for any tender, this means that construction works it mentions is just an example, thus, the statement of Counsel Byiringiro Bajeni that article 10, paragraph one, litera 2 of the Law No37/2012 of 09/11/2012 forementioned exempts the tax on advance given to constuctors only, has no merit. [22] Basing on motivations above, the Court also finds that, the advance payment is not a payment at the extent that it can be considered as an income produced by a company which is provided for by article 37 of the Law No16/2005 of 18/08/2005 forementioned, because it is refunded to the procuring entity so RWANDA LAW REPORTS 70

## Page 254

that it releases the given guaranty, therefore, it should not be among the amount of money on which the income tax is charged.

II.2 Determining the amount of profit which should be charged penalities for not registering for value added tax. [23] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel argues that FCVG Ltd was charged penalities of not registering for VAT on basis of 100,000,000Frw whereas RRA acknowledges that amount includes the advance payment of 6,506,528Frw received on 06/01/2012, and other amount of 46,159,182Frw received on 13/04/2012 which is not recognized by RRA but which MINAGRI confirmed in its letter of 09/09/2016 that it was also an advance payment issued on the tender of Gatsibo-8 and it was refunded, meaning that this 52,665,710Frw is an advance payment which is exempted from VAT, then that amount should not be included in turnover for which FCVG Ltd is being fined for delaying to register for VAT, because it would imply that ,it was fined 100% instead of 50% which is provided by article 63, paragraph one of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedure. [24] Counsel Byiringiro Bajeni states that even FCVG Ltd acknowledges that, it has to be fined as provided by article 63, of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures since it had reached a turnover of 20,000,000Frw and failed to register for VAT within seven days (7). He explains that 46,159,182Frw is not an advance payment because its invoice No1-03/03/2012 of 26/3/2012 and was paid on 6/1/2012 and charged 3% because it is a public tender and withholding tax of 15% as a payment of 71 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 255

services and those taxes were also levied on 6,506,528Frw, its invoice was issued on 6/12/2011 and paid on 6/1/2012, he further states that the payment which was charged various taxes and even those taxes were deducted from a revised turnover can not be considered as an advance payment. Even if it was an advance payment it had to be charged VAT because the activities of FCVG Ltd are not related to construction work of which advance payment is exempted from tax. VIEW OF THE COURT [25] Article 10, paragraph one of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedures as modified and complemented to date, provides that any person who sets up a business or other activities that may be taxable is obliged to register with the Tax Administration within a period of seven (7) days from the beginning of the business or activity or the establishment of the company. Whereas paragraph two of that article provides that any person who carries out taxable activities exceeding twenty million Rwanda Francs (20,000,000RWF) of its turnover in the previous fiscal year, or five million Rwanda Francs (5,000,000RWF) in the preceding calendar quarter is required to register for VAT with the tax administration within a period of seven (7) days from the end of the year or from the end of the quarter mentioned above. [26] Article 60, paragraph one, litera 7 of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedures as modified and complimented to date, provides that a taxpayer or any person is subject to an administrative penalty if he/she fails to: register as described in Article 10 of this Law; while article 63, litera 1, of that Law provides that the following administrative fines are imposed to RWANDA LAW REPORTS 72

## Page 256

persons who do not comply with provisions of Value Added Tax: 1°in the event of operation without VAT registration where VAT registration is required, fifty percent (50%) of the amount of VAT payable for the entire period of operation. [27] The case file contains an invoice No 01- 03/03/2012 indicating that on 26/03/2012 FCVG Ltd requested for advance payment of 46,159,240Frw for Gatsibo-8 site, that money was paid by cheque issued to FCVG Ltd on 03/04/2012, in it’s letter dated 09/09/2016, MINAGRI admitted that the money reffered to was for advance payment. [28] In the case file There is also an invoice No2-06/12/2011 of 06/12/2011 requesting for the second installement of the advance payment equivalent to 6,506,528Frw, for September 2011to February 2012, that money was paid by cheque on 06/01/2012, the payroll does not indicate anywhere that VAT was included. [29] The Court finds that RRA acknowledges that 6,506,528Frw was paid as advance payment, in addition to that, the documents in the case file indicate that 46,159,182Frw was also paid for that purpose, in its letter dated 09/09/2016 MINAGRI emphasizes that 46,159,182Frw was fully refunded to it, that is why it accepted to release the guaranty that was provided by FCVG Ltd in SONARWA S.A., thus, there is no doubt that 52,665,710 Frw (6,506,528Frw + 46,159,182Frw) was paid by MINAGRI as an advance payment and was refunded. [30] As motivated above the Court finds that VAT is not charged on advance payment because it is refunded by the successful bidder to the procuring entity so that the latter can 73 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 257

release the guaranty it was given, this implies that it is not part of turnover or profit accrued by the successful bidder, thus, it can not be based on to charge a fine of 50% which applies to the business person who does not register for VAT while he is legally obliged to do so. [31] Based on the motivations in the previous paragraphs, the Court finds that, on 99,004,711Frw based on to charge FCVG Ltd a fine of 50% because of not registering for VAT on time, be deducted 52,665,710Frw from it because it was an advance payment that was refunded to MINAGRI as a procuring entity. II.3 Determing the profit margin on which income tax should be levied. [32] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel admits that the books of accounts of FCVG Ltd were not kept as provided by the Law, that is the reason why he acknwoledges that it should have been taxed based on the principle of comparison of taxpayers, then FCVG Ltd should have been compared to other businesses dealing in the same activities, but it does not know, where RRA found the taxpayer dealing in the same ativities as FCVG Ltd which made a profit margin of 21% because they were not informed about it, but the one they know which deals in same business is COCOASTER Ltd, and was taxed at the rate of 3%, therefore he requests that the income tax claimed to FCVG Ltd be computed at the rate of 3%. [33] Counsel Byiringiro Bajeni argues that FCVG Ltd did not keep its accounts nor provide its commercial records so that they can be compared to the tax declaration it made. This implies that, it could not be compared to any taxpayer, even COCOASTER which it alleges to be compared with, they found RWANDA LAW REPORTS 74

## Page 258

that there is COCOASTER which used to trade as a company but closed down in 2014 and another COCOASTER which is a cooperative operating in agriculture and constructs terraces, meaning that they don’t deal in same activities, he explains that, it was the reason why FCVG Ltd was taxed without notice. He further explains that the tax administration finds that it declared a turnover of 34,105,600Frw and a profit of 7,809,700Frw which is equivalent to a profit margin of 23% while the bank statement indicates that, it made a profit of 21%, reason why he was taxed on average profit of 21%, thus, he finds that the Commercial High Court did not err in ordering FCVG Ltd to be taxed at rate of 21%. VIEW OF THE COURT [34] Article 45, litera one, of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedures provides that the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer when : 1° the Tax Administration conducts a tax assessment without notice. [35] The case file indicates that FCVG Ltd was charged income tax of 2,849,742Frw for 2011, 16,988,112Frw for 2012 and 12,394,551Frw for 2013, and was notified by tax auditors that it won’t be taxed at the rate of 3% because it did not produce evidence to support it, thus, it appealed to Commissionner General stating that it made a gross profit margin of 20% but when it deducts insurance, wages, taxes, depreciation, loan interests it remains with 3%. In his letter dated 17/09/2015, Commissionner General found that FCVG Ltd does not prove its claim, therefore decided that its appeal lacks merit. 75 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 259

[36] The Court finds that FCVG Ltd concurs with the tax administration that its accounting was not in compliance with the Law, and was taxed without notice, therefore pursuant to the provisions of article 45, litera 1, of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 forementioned, it is the one with the burden to prove that the profit margin on which the tax adminitration based on to charge it tax, was incorrect. It can not up to now, demonstrate the basis of claiming that, it should be taxed at the profit margin of 3% because it can not indicate its turnover so that, if deductables expenses are subtracted, it remains 3% of profit, thus, its argument that it should be taxed on the profit margin of 3% has no merit. [37] The Court also finds that, FCVG Ltd could not prove that the maximum profit of COCOASTER Ltd with which it compares itself with, is 3%, instead Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel who repesents it, states that they could not find the books of accounts of COCOASTER, even the tax administration states that they could not gather accounting information of COCOASTER which operates as a cooperative, so that it can be based on to confirm that the maximum profit for those who work in construction of terraces is 3% for those reasons this Court can not decide that the profit of FCVG Ltd was 3% instead of 21% indicated both in tax declaration it made or in its bank statement,thus, the profit margin on which the income tax should be computed is 21%. II.4. Whether FCVG Ltd evaded tax, so that it can be penalised. [38] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel states that, the penalities that FCVG Ltd deserve is 50% for not registering for VAT on time, but the tax administration charged it a fine of 100% for tax RWANDA LAW REPORTS 76

## Page 260

evasion because they are some suppliers who denied VAT invoices they issued to it in 2012, while it is normal that the suppliers deny those invoices when they failed to declare them. He explains that, the issue was not well examined because what should have been examined is the invoices number and their issuers, and this should have been done for the year 2012 only, basing on the principle of independance of fiscal year, if faults were committed in 2012, penalities should not be beyond that specific year. [39] Counsel Byiringiro Bajeni states that the arguments of FCVG LTD that it should be penalised at a rate of 50% due to tax evasion lacks merit because the audit indicated that it declared non-existing deductables expenses and VAT input aiming to evade tax for the years of 2011, 2012, and 2013, this is proved by the statement of some suppliers who stated that they sold nothing to FCVG LTD, that is the reason why the Commercial High Court in paragraphs 11,14 and 15 held that the fine of 100% provided in aricle 64 of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedures had merit. VIEW OF THE COURT [40] Article 64 of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedure as modified and complemented to date provides that a taxpayer who commits fraud is subject to an administrative fine of one hundred percent (100%) of the evaded tax. [41] The case file contains letters of business persons (UPROTUR, RUTA Trading Company Ltd, Gasangwa Vianney, S.R.D.S. Ltd) that they wrote to the deputy Commissionner General in charge of anti smuglling 77 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 261

departement confirming that, they did not sale goods to FCVG Ltd in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The case file also indicates that, FCVG Ltd was informed by auditors that it was fined at 100% because it declared false VAT invoices, whereas it stated itself that it has no evidence of its statment about deductable expenses, when it appealed to Commissionner General for those penalities, he also found that he does not provide evidence of its statement rather it deliberately evaded tax (identification mark 8 and 13). [42] The Court finds that the documents in the case file indicate that FCVG Ltd states that there are goods it bought which were charged VAT which it had to be refunded whereas the suppliers it alleged to have bought from, denied it, in addition to that it can not provide the proof of deductable expenses which it claims they should be deducted from its turnover, meaning that its intention was to get a refund of VAT while there is no evidence that it paid it and also it wants to minimise its turnover by substracting detuctable expenses with no evidence, all these are means of tax evasion. [43] The Court finds that, when there is evidence proving that FCVG Ltd made a tax declaration with the aim of tax evasion, it should be penalised at a fine of 100% of tax it evaded as provided by article 64 of the Law No25/2005 of 04/12/2005 of tax procedures as modified and complimented to date. II.5 Whether FCVG Ltd should be awarded damages is requesting. [44] Counsel Nsengiyumva Abel states that RRA should give FCVG Ltd three millions (3,000,000Frw) for counsel fee. Counsel. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 78

## Page 262

[45] Byiringiro Bajeni states that damages requested by FCVG Ltd have no merit, instead RRA should be given damages for procedural fee determined in Court’s discretion based on article 258 book three civil code. VIEW OF THE COURT [46] The Court finds that FCVG Ltd and RRA, respectively, has lost in part in this case, thus none can claim that it was dragged in vexatious lawsuit, reason why counsel fee requested by FCVG Ltd and procedural fee requested by RRA are not awarded. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [47] Decides that the appeal of Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd has merit in part ; [48] Decides that the judgment RCOMA00184/2016/CHC/HCC rendered by Commercial High Court on 29/07/2016 is reversed in part ; [49] Decides that the advance payment equals to 90,876,520Frw cannot be charged value added tax ; [50] Decides that the advance payment equals to 90,876,520Frw cannot be charged income tax; [51] Decides to subtract 52,665,710Frw from 99,004,711Frw which is the tax base to compute a fine of 50% which Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd was charged due to not registering for VAT on time, because it was an advance 79 FCVG v. RRA

## Page 263

payment which was refunded to the procuring entity (MINAGRI); [52] Decides that the income tax should be computed at the profit margin of 21%; [53] Decides that Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd must be fined 100% of the tax it evaded ; [54] It orders RRA and Forest Company Volcanoes Gorillas (FCVG) Ltd to jointly pay Court fee equal to hundred thousand (100,000Frw). RWANDA LAW REPORTS 80

## Page 264

MUNYAMPUNDU v. RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY (RRA) [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RCOMAA00040/2016/CS (Mutashya, P.J., Gakwaya and Karimunda, J.) December 22, 2017] Company law – Piercing the corporate veil – Directors or shareholders’ liability has to be decided by the Court in that circumstance the Court disregards the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its owners, so that the latter be held liable for the actions or omissions of the company – Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 95 (5). Company law – Liability – Seizure of the properties of shareholders and directors of a company with the purpose to sell it – The seizure of the properties of the shareholders and directors of a the company without a judicial decision establishing their liability in the company’s failure to pay tax is to ignore the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its directors or shareholders – Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 95(5) – Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 46 bis. Facts: RRA seized immovable properties of the shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil in order to get the payment of the tax which was levied on that company, this led them to sue RRA to the Commercial Court of Nyarugenge arguing that it seized their individual property while a director or shareholder of a company is not liable for the tax imposed to the company unless 81

## Page 265

it is ordered by the Court, they pray for annulation of that seizure. That court held that the seizure on immovable properties of the shareholders is unlawful because instead of seizing the properties of Quincaillerie du Nil, those of its shareholders were the one which was done without the court decision holding the shareholders liable. RRA was not satisfied with that decision and appealed against it at the Commercial High Court stating that the Law on tax procedure does not provide for a prior decision holding a director or shareholder of a company liable in order to recover unpaid tax. The court held that RRA had the right to seize the properties of the shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil prior to the decision of a competent court holding them liable for defaulted tax. The shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil were not contented with that decision and appealed before the Supreme Court stating that their properties were unlawfully seized because that seizure was not ordered by the court, they further argue that their personal properties are separate from those of the company for which they are shareholders. Therefore, they request court to examine whether it is allowed to seize the properties of a person who was not charged the tax before the court holds him/her liable. In its defense, RRA states that the seized properties were not auctioned, rather, the seizure of the property of directors or shareholders of a company which did not fulfil its duties of paying tax due to the negligence or poor management and misuse of its properties is intended, to prevent their transfer because if it is not done, the property from which the tax has to RWANDA LAW REPORTS 82

## Page 266

be recovered, would be fraudulently transferred and thus loose tax. Held: 1. Directors or shareholders’ liability has to be decided by the Court in that circumstance the Court disregards the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its owners, so that the latter be held liable for the actions or omissions of the company. 2. The seizure of the properties of the shareholders and directors of a company without a judicial decision establishing their liability in the company’s failure to pay tax is to ignore the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its directors or shareholders. This can lead the directors and shareholders to be held liable for actions of the company as if are their own at any time, by any one. Therefore, RRA was not allowed to seize the properties of Munyampundu and Mukarugambwa prior to the judicial decision establishing their liability in Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd’s failure to pay tax. Appeal has merit. Annuls the seizure. With the Court fees to the respondent. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies, article 95 (5). Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, article 248 and 198. Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, article 46 bis and 48. 83 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 267

Cases referred to: Twagiramungu v. Rwanda Revenue Authority, RCOMAA0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA0061/16/CS, rendered by Supreme Court, on 14/07/2011. Solomon v Solomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL, AGC (Investments) Limited v Commissioner of Taxation, Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Rwanda Revenue Authority taxed Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd 654,158,102Frw; the latter was not satisfied with that decision, it resorted to the legal procedures including the Court, requesting for the annulment of the tax it was imposed. On the last instance, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment RCOMA0029/12/CS and held that Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd reimburses the tax it was imposed. [2] As a mean of claiming for payment of the tax worth 1,031,615,726Frw, Rwanda Revenue Authority seized the immovable property of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice because they are the shareholders. Consequently, Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice filed a claim to the Commercial Court arguing that instead of Rwanda Revenue Authority getting the tax from Quincallerie du Nil Ltd’s property, it seized their personal property while they are not ones who were charged tax; this is contrary to article 48 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on RWANDA LAW REPORTS 84

## Page 268

tax procedures because the director or shareholder of company should not be held liable of the the tax that was imposed to that campany unless it was ordered by the Court. [3] Commercial Court of Nyarugenge rendered a judgment RCOM0805/15/TC/NYGE-RCOM0778/15/TC/NYGE and found that the seizure of the immovable property located on plot N°1070, 180, 1271 and 179 is unlawfully because instead of seizing the property of Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, it seized those of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice, without a competent court holding its directors and its shareholders liable of as provided by article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures. [4] Commercial Court of Nyarugenge found also that the pleadings of Rwanda Revenue Authority that this court rules on the liability and role of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice which led Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd to not complying with its obligations because they are its directors and shareholders, groundless since it requested it after seizing their personal properties. [5] Rwanda Revenue Authority was not satisfied with that ruling and appealed to the Commercial High Court stating that the article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures does not provides for prior decision of the court holding a director or a shareholder of a company liable in order to pay tax payment of the tax to begin, rather the tax administration has the right to ask them for payment in case the tax administration deems that it was their negligence or bad faith that led the company not to pay tax; if a dispuste raise, they can file a claim to the court in order to decide whether they are liable or not. 85 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 269

[6] In the judgment RCOMA0024/16/HCC rendered on 15 April 2016, the Court found that the issue which the parties disagreed upon is to determine whether it is necessary to prior file a claim to the Court so that it decides about the liability of directors and shareholders of the company before seizing their properties with the purpose to pay the tax on behalf of the company, with the analysis of the article 46 bis of Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures, it finds that it does not provide that the seizure on the properties of directors and shareholders of the the company should be carried out before the Court held on their liability because the seizure proceed before selling for the property not to be concealed before the decision of the Court about the liability of its owners. [7] The Court held that Rwanda Revenue Authority had the right to seizure the immovable properties of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugamba Béatrice, the shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, prior to the decision of the competent Court declaring that they are liable for the company not paying the tax; therefore, it overturned the rulings of the appealed judgment. [8] Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice were not contented with that decision and appealed to the Supreme Court requesting to examine whether the seizure of property belonging to someone who was not the one charged tax is allowed prior to the decision of the Court because they realise that article 46 bis of Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures does not explicitly indicate whether the seizure of the property of directors and shareholders of a company which was charged tax is carried out prior or after the decision of the competent Court; for them, they find that the decision of the RWANDA LAW REPORTS 86

## Page 270

Court precedes the seizure since the seizure is carried out with the purpose of selling the property in order to pay the tax. [9] The hearing of the case was scheduled on 16 May 2017, on that day the hearing was not conducted because the counsel for Rwanda Revenue Autority was on a working mission. The hearing was postponed to different dates due to the various reasons; it was finally held in public on 21 November 2017, Mukarugambwa Béatrice was represented by Counsel Ndayisabye Alex; Munyampundu Antoine was represented by Counsel Twilingiyemungu Joseph whereas Rwanda Revenue Authority was represented by Counsel Gatera Jean Clément and Me Twahirwa Jean-Baptiste. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUES. II.1. Whether the seizure of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice’s property was illegal [10] Counsel Ndayisabye Alex states that Mukarugambwa Béatrice’s properties were illegaly seized since that seizure was carried out without the court’s decision provided by article 46 bis of Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures. He explains that the Commercial High Court wrongly analysed that issue because it declared there is no proof that the seizure would be followed by the sale of the seized properties, it also held that the claim on their liability was inadmissible, thus he wonders the basis of that seizure. He further explains that to seize one ’s property on the ground of payment of tax, is preceded by demonstrating that he is the one charged that tax , that is what is provided by article 48 of the aforementionned Law, seizing the property without demonstrating that the owner of the property is 87 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 271

the one charged tax would be violating his personal property, which is prohibited by article 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 1, contrary to the principle of piercing corporate veil and also contrary to the jurisprudence from other jurisdictions, like in England whereby in the case of Solomon v. Solomon2, the Supreme Court held that the family property or personal property should not be considered as company property, for those reasons he requests that the appealed judgment be quashed. [11] Twilingiyemungu Joseph, the Counsel for Munyampundu Antoine states that the tax is imposed to Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd because it has its own property which is different from that of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice. He advances that article 46 bis of Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures was introduced in 2013 with the purpose of preventing tax evasion that can be committed by those who jointly own the property with the company; however it provides that the liability must be determined by the Court, that article must be read together with article 48 of that law which stipulates that the seizure shall take place according to the Law on civil and commercial procedure, whereas article 223 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides for the procedure of provisional seizure, all these articles provide for the provisional seizure which aims to protect the seized properties waiting for the judgment for

1 “Everyone has the right to private property, whether individually or collectively owned private property, whether owned individually or collectively, is inviolable. The right to property shall not be encroached upon except in public interest and in accordance with the provisions of the law” 2 Solomon v. Solomon & Co [1897] AC 22. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 88

## Page 272

distraint. He explains that this is where the Commercial High Court confused the facts by declaring that provisional seizure was carried out while the case file demonstrates that after the seizure, the tax administration fixed immediately the date of auction, this should not have been the procedure without the decision of the Court which establishes the liability of the owners of the property. [12] Gatera Jean Clément, Counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that the seizure of the property of directors or shareholders of a company which did not fulfil its duties of paying tax due to the negligence or poor management of its property, it aims to prevent the transfer of the property because if it is not the case, the proprety on which the tax will be charged can be concealed. He explains that article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above provides for the seizure procedure of that property without the ruling of the Court since the legislator thought if the lawsuits preceed, the property can be fraudulently conveyed or concealed, this demonstrates that the right on property was not violated. He adduces that those properties were not auctioned and their owners do not deny that there are the shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd which is claimed for the payment of the tax that led to the seizure; therefore, he realises that the tax administration did not contradict with article 48 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above. [13] Twahirwa Jean-Baptiste, Counsel for Rwanda Revenue Authority argues that it is the one which has the obligation to collect taxes, thus, he finds it would not have filed a claim on the liability of the shareholders of the company while there is another claim filed by Munyampundu Antoine and 89 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 273

Mukarugambwa Béatrice. He explains that the seizure intended to prevent the the concealment of the property that would lead to the failure of payment of the tax, because waiting the lawsuits procedure would be terminated after concealment of the property on which the tax would be charged. VIEW OF THE COURT [14] Article 198 of Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that enforcement orders shall be judgements and other court orders, arbitral awards, authentic deeds containing clauses permitting creditors to sell mortgaged property without recourse to judicial proceedings, public tender contracts, authentic foreign deeds and judgements bearing the exequatur formula by a competent Rwandan judicial authority. [15] Article 284 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, provides that the creditor cannot apply for the seizure of immovable property of his/her debtor without basing on the documents referred to in article 198 of this Law. [16] Article 46 bis of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides that directors who are directly involved in the control and management of a private company shall be jointly liable for any tax liabilities incurred by the company if it can be reasonably concluded that they intentionally or negligently caused the company to incur the tax liabilities. Shareholders who become involved in the management of the company and/or misuse company’s funds shall also be liable for any tax liability if they led to the company’s inability to meet its RWANDA LAW REPORTS 90

## Page 274

tax obligations. A competent court shall determine the liability of the directors and shareholder(s) under this article. [17] Article 48 of Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures when tax is not paid within fifteen (15) days as mentioned in article 46 of this law, the tax Administration may attach any movable or immovable property of the taxpayer, whether held by the taxpayer or any other person. The seized property is sold under a public auction after eight (8) days the taxpayer is notified of the affidavit […] The seizure and selling of the attached goods takes place according to the law on civil and commercial procedures. In the field of taxation, the bailiffs of the tax administration have the same competence as private. [18] The case file demonstrates that Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd whose Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice are shareholders, was imposed the tax worth 654,158,102Frw.The case file also contains the document of 12/01/2015 issued by the deputy land registrar proving that the land on plot N°1175, N°1165 and N°2292 located at Kinyinya sector, Gasharu cell; plot N°1070 located at Kimihurura sector, Kamukina cell and the plots N°180 and N°1271 located at Gahanga sector, Gahanga cell that are registered on the names of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice while all are under caveat against any transfer of property ( indentification mark 10). [19] The case file also includes the statement of seizure of 10/03/2011 of the buildings of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice located at Kacyiru, Kigali city because of tax which Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd owes Rwanda Revenue Authority, it also includes the letter 94/RRA/DTD/SMTO/TAMD/15 of Mukakalisa Francine court 91 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 275

bailiff in tax administration, informing Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice that their property composed of the house which is on plot N° UPI 1/02/08/01/1070 located in nyenyeri village, Kamukina cell, Kimihurura sector, Gasabo District is seized because they do not pay the tax worth 654,158,102Frw that they owe Rwanda Revenue Authority, that after 8 days without paying that debt, the house will be auctioned (identification mark 6 and 9). [20] The case file also includes the letter dated on 02/06/2011 of Counsel Hakizimana John on behalf of Munyampundu Antoine requesting the General Commissioner to annul the seizure of the building constructed on plot No1084 Kacyiru- Nord, it also contains the other letter of Counsel Ndayisabye Alex on behalf of Mukarugambwa Béatrice written to Mukakalisa Francine informing her that the house she seized does not belong to Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, rather it belongs to Mukarugambwa Béatrice and Munyampundu Antoine, in addition to that it is their residence (identification mark 11 and 13). [21] The Court finds that Rwanda Revenue Authority bases the seizure of of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice’s properties, the shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd on the fact that it is no where to be found, to pay that tax, that the puporse of the seizure is to prevent the concealment of that property, and the disappearance of that company implies poor management or mis use of its property, which led to faulting on the payment of the tax. [22] The court finds that according to the notice assessment issued to Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd, which property is different from its shareholders who are Munyampundu Antoine and RWANDA LAW REPORTS 92

## Page 276

Mukarugambwa Béatrice, and that notice assessment has effect on the party for whom it was issued for, with regards to this case, it should not be based on to imposed tax to the director or shareholder of the company because it was not issued to him/her. [23] The Court finds that article 46 bis Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides that the reason for which a director and the campany can bejointly held liable for unpayed tax imposed to the company is when there is a decision which reasonably concluded that he intentionally or negligently caused the company to incur the tax liabilities, whereas, shareholders who become involved in the management of the company and/or misuse company’s funds shall also be liable for any tax liability if they led to the company’s inability to meet its tax obligations. The words: if it can be reasonably concluded , it is used to the directors , and words: shareholders who become involved in the management of the company and/or misuse company’s funds, they are used to the shareholders, on which Rwanda Revenue Authority bases on stating that Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice who were the shareholders of Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd (it disappeared) misused its funds , should not be considered in an isolated way, rather they should be read together with the whole article and the intention of the legislator. [24] The Court finds that the provisions of article 46 bis of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above imply that the directors or shareholders of the company can not be held liable for tax imposed to the company, if it cannot be reasonably concluded that intentionally or negligently the shareholders who were involved in the management of the company misused its 93 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 277

funds which caused the company to default on the payment of the tax. The mismanagement or the fault committed by the director or shareholders which led the company to default on its obligation to pay its tax have to be declared by the Court in its discretion; therefore, the arguments of RRA that it is not necessary to prior file a claim to court for liability of directors or shareholders because the seizure was carried out with the sole intention of preventingt fraudulent conveyence of the property, they have no merit. [25] The Court finds that the seizure of the property of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice with the puporse to auction it before holding them liable for causing the company which their were shareholders to default on the payment of the tax, is to disregard the distinction between the legal personality of the company and that of its directors and shareholders3 to ignoring it can lead the directors and shareholders to be held liable for actions of the company as if are their own at any time, by any one; which is contrary to the provisions of article 46 bis and 48 of the Law N°25/2005 of 04/12/2005 mentioned above. [26] The Court finds that as it had ruled in the various judgments including that of Twagiramungu Venuste v. Rwanda Revenue Authority, the liabilities of the directors or shareholders of a company known as “piercing the corporate veil” or “lifting the veil of the corporation” it is an exception which is only ordered by the court, it disregards the distinction

3 “The legal fiction of corporate veil, thus established, enunciate that a Company has a legal personality separate and independent from the identity of its shareholders.” See Murray A. Pickering, the Company as Separate Legal Entity (1968) 31 Mod.L.Rev.481. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 94

## Page 278

between legal personality of the company and that of its owners, so that the directors and shareholders be held liable for the actions of a company as if are theirs 4 , this principle that the liability must be decided by the court, it was recalled in article 95 paragraph 5 of the Law N°27/2017 of 31/05/2017 governing companies which provides that ‟a court may pierce the corporate veil to hold a shareholder liable for obligations of the company if the court finds that the shareholder has abused the company form for fraudulent or illegal purposes or wrongfully treated the company’s assets as personal assets as though the company did not exist”. However, in deciding that liability, the Courts emphasises that the circumstances in which the corporate veil may be lifted are greatly circumscribed which demonstrate the reasons why the directors and shareholders should be held liable in place of company5, this emphasize that the separation of those legal personalities can not be deceded by everybody or done anyhow, but it is an exception which has to be decided by the courts with the purpose of protecting certain interests which could not be protect if the court do not hold the

4 “Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the veil of incorporation refers to the judicially imposed exception to the separate legal entity principle, whereby courts disregard the separateness of the corporation and hold a shareholder responsible for the actions of the corporation as if it were the actions of the shareholder.” See Munyamahoro Réné, “Meaning and application of the principle of lifting the veil of incorporate in company law” (2011) 22 Scientific Review at 105. 5See AGC (Investments) Limited v. Commissioner of Taxation, Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1964) 111 CLR 443 (HC, Mc Tiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Windeyer and Owen JJ). 95 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 279

directors and shareholders liable for making the company to default on its obligations6. [27] The Court finds that the seizure of the property with the aim of auctioning it without enforcement orders, is contrary to the provisions of article 198 and 284 of the Law N°21/2012 of 14/06/2012 mentioned above, and moreover, article 48 of the Law Nº25/2005 of 04/12/2005 on tax procedures provides that the seizure and auction of the attached goods takes place according to the law on civil and commercial procedures, this demonstrates that Rwanda Revenue Authority was not allowed to seize the properties of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice prior to the decision of the Court declaring them liable for causing Quinquallerie du Nil Ltd to which they are shareholders, to default on paying the tax. II.2. Whether the requested damages in this case have merit [28] Counsel Gatera Jean Clément argues that Rwanda Revenue Authority was dragged into unnecessary lawsuits that led it to hire lawyers to follow up on the case instead of attending to other activities, thus, they request 2,000,000Frw for counsel fees. [29] Counsel Ndayisabye Alex states that RRA does not deserve the damages it requests because it is the one which erred y unlawfully seizing the properties of Mukarugambwa Béatrice. He further explains that the seizure caused his client to

6See the judgment, RCOMAA0056/2016/SC-RCOMAA0061/16/CS, between Twagiramungu Vénuste v. RRA, rendered by the Supreme Court on 14/07/2017, paragraph 22.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 96

## Page 280

incur expenses by following up on her property in the courts of law, therefore basing on article 258 of the civil code book III, he requests that his client be awarded 1,000,000Frw of the procedure fees and 2,000,000Frw of the counsel fees. [30] Counsel Twilingiyemungu Joseph states that RRA cannot err and at the sametime requests for damages, thus, it finds that Munyampundu Antoine is the one who should be awarded 2,000,000Frw of the counsel fees because he hired a lawyer to defend his rights in the Courts. VIEW OF THE COURT [31] The Court finds that the procedure and counsel fees requested by RRA are not awarded because it unlawfully seized their properties which led the appellants to seek for relief in the courts of law. [32] The Court finds that Mukarugambwa Béatrice sued before courts in order to regain her property which was unlawfully seized, this caused her to incur procedural expenses and also hired a lawyer. Therefore, in the discretion of the Court she is awarded 500,000Frw of the procedural fees and 1,000,000Frw for the counsel fees because she does not justify that the amount she requests were spent on this case. [33] The court further finds that Munyampundu Antoine also hired a lawyer to regain his property which was illegally seized, therefore in the discretion of the court, he is awarded 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees because he does not justify that the amount she requests were spent on this case. 97 MUNYAMPUNDU v. RRA

## Page 281

III. DECISION OF THE COURT [34] Holds that the appeal of Munyampundu Antoine has merit; [35] Holds that the appeal of Mukarugambwa Béatrice has merit; [36] Annuls the seizure of Munyampundu Antoine and Mukarugambwa Béatrice’s properties which was aimed at getting payment of the tax charged to Quincaillerie du Nil Ltd. [37] Orders RRA to pay Mukarugambwa Béatrice 500,000Frw of the procedure fees and 1,000,000Frw of the counsel fees; [38] Orders RRA to pay Munyampundu Antoine 1,000,000Frw for the counsel fees; [39] Court fees born by Rwanda Revenue Authority.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 98

## Page 282

CRIMINAL CASES

## Page 284

PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL [Rwanda HIGH COURT – RPA0015/2017/HC/HCCI (Mukamurenzi, P.J) March 20, 2017] Criminal Law – The offence of human trafficking – The elements constituting the offence of human trafficking – For the offence to be qualified as human trafficking, there has to be three elements namely recruitment of a person, transfer of a person to another part, the means used such as use of force, deception and threat, and intention pursued like harming his/her life or unlawfully exploiting her or him. Criminal Law – The offence of human trafficking – Trafficking persons out of the country – The fact that the victim of trafficking is an adult and having agreed to go, can not prevent the perpetrator from being prosecuted because this offence is committed by means of deception – Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 251 – Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime of 15/11/2000, article 3. Facts: Before High Court, chamber for international crimes, Nyirabagenzi and Mukakabano were prosecuted for the offence of human trafficking after Nyirabagenzi and Murekatete were arrested at Gatuna border between Rwanda and Uganda alleging that they were going to search for employment in Oman. 101

## Page 285

The Prosecution demonstrates that they were returned back when Nyirabagenzi was trafficking Murekatete. The Prosecution further states that since 2014, Murekatete was constantly pursuaded to go and work in Oman, but she didn’t go because she had a toddler, in 2017, through Murekatete’s mother, Nyirabagenzi pursuaded her again to go by telling her that there are opportunities and good welfare in Oman, she decided to leave due to her mother’s pressure who used to convince her that she is a single mother and that once she goes, she would get a job and they live a better lifeand there are other girls who went and they are having better life, the Prosecution also states that Nyirabagenzi collaborates with others such as Mukakabano whoconnected Nyirabagenzi and Murekatete to someone called Lydia (Fatima) whom they had to call once they reach Kampala, so that she facilitates them to travel to Oman, for that reason, Mukakabano gave Lydia’s telephone number to Nyirabagenzi. The accused pleaded not guilty, for Nyirabagenzi, she explained that she was arrested together with Murekatete on their way going to search for a job and that the Prosecution faild to prove that she was cought at the market place where people are trafficked, the buyer and the price she received, she adds that Murekatete who they allege that she was being trafficked, is an adult who cannot act contraly to her will. Whereas for Mukakabano, she argued that she didn’t intend to traffick any person, she explains that she lived in Oman from 2012 to 2014, and she had Lydia’s telephone address purposely to contact her for help in case she wants to go back to Oman because she works for a recruitment agency situated in Kenya. She adds that she came to know Nyirabagenzi through whatsapp group of Rwandans living in Oman and when she told her that RWANDA LAW REPORTS 102

## Page 286

she wants to go back to Oman to search for a job, she gave her Lydia’s phone number so that she will assist her. Held: 1. For the offence to be qualified as human trafficking, there has to be three elements namely recruitment of a person, transfer of a person to another part, the means used such as use of force, deception and threat, and intention pursued like harming his/her life or unlawfully exploiting her or him. 2. The acts for which Nyirabagenzi Mariam is being prosecuted of recruiting, pursuading and taking Murekatete Amina from Rwanda to Oman, her plot was foiled by their arrest at Gatuna border, this constitutes the attempt of the offence of participating in trafficking a person out of the country instead of being qualified as an offence of human trafficking. 3. The fact that Murekatete is an adult and she also wanted to go, can not prevent Nyirabagenzi from being prosecuted because Murekatete was trafficked by means of deception taking advantage of her being poor and single mother, the consent of a victim of trafficking in persons is irrelevant. 4. The fact that Mukakabano participated in connecting Nyirabagenzi and Murekatete to Fatima who was in Kampala who would have facilitated them to travel to Oman, the act she committed constitutes attempt of participating in trafficking persons out of the country. The accused are guilty of attempt of trafficking a person out of the country; Court fees to the public treasury. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: 103 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 287

Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 27,250,251 and 252. Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime of 15/11/2000, article 3. No cases referred to. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Nyirabagenzi Mariam and Murekatete Amina were arrested on the border between Rwanda and Uganda at Gatuna, stating that they went to seek a job in Oman. During interrogatory, Murekatete Amina said that she has always been pursuaded to find a job for her in Oman, but she didn’t go because she had a toddler. The Prosecution filed an action to Court stating that Murekatete Amina was returned back from Gatuna border when she was taken abroad by Nyirabagenzi Mariam as a commodity in acts of human trafficking with a help of Mukakabano Nadia Yazida as an intermediary. They pleaded not guilty, Nyirabagenzi Mariam defends that they were arrested while they went for seeking employment in Oman, whereas Mukakabano Nadia Yazida argues that telephone number she gave to Nyirabagenzi Mariam, belongs to someone who was supposed to arrange her to find employment and official documents to allow her travelling to Oman, that she did not intend for human trafficking. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 104

## Page 288

[2] Issues to be analysed in this case are determining whether Nyirabagenzi Mariam was arrested taking Murekatete Amina out of the country for human trafficking and whether Mukakabano Nadia Yazida giving out telephone number of the person who was supposed to facilitate them to find official documents to travelli to Oman proves the role in the commission of the offence. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES Whether Nyirabagenzi Mariam was arrested taking Murekatete Amina out of the country for human trafficking. [3] The prosecution states that since 2014 Murekatete Amina was pursuaded to find a job in Oman, that she didn’t go because she had a toddler, that later, in 2017 through her mother, Nyirabagenzi Mariam again pursuaded her to go saying that she will have a job and good living conditions in Oman, hence she gave in to the pressure of her mother who told her that as a single mother if she went, she would get a job and enables them to have a decent living, she further told her that other girls who went have a better life, but they were arrested on the Gatuna border. [4] The prosecution adds that Nyirabagenzi Mariam cooperates with other people like Mukakabano Nadia Yazida and others from Kenya such as Fatima known as Lydia who they would call once they reach Kampala, to facilitate them in finding travel documents to Oman. The prosecution further states that during interrogation in judicial police and before Prosecution, Nyirabagenzi Mariam confessed that she was arrested at Gatuna together with Murekatete Amina going to 105 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 289

Uganda where they had to meet Lydia, who was supposed to facilitate them to leave for Oman, that she also confessed to pursuading Murekatete, that in Oman there is good job and better living conditions, that she also once lived there. [5] The Prosecution argues that the offence of human trafficking starts with the acts of pursuading, recruitment, and facilitation in travel documents and transportation, that all these were done but fortunately, they were arrested at Gatuna. They add that the intent is also proven through that pursuasion promising green pasture which include good job, and they took advantage of her poverty situation. [6] Nyirabagenzi Mariam pleads not guilty, stating that the Prosecution does not prove that she was cought at the human trafficking market, the buyer and the price received. She explained that together with Murekatete, they were arrested on the border on their way to Uganda, that they were going to seek for employment and that she did not pursuade her to go to Oman because they didn’t know each other, instead, it was on request of Murekatete’s mother because she knew that she lived in Oman and was about to go back there. She further argues that by the time Murekatete got a passport, she was living in Oman and that Murekatete reveals how she got it in 2014 and those who helped her to get it. She adds that she is not the one who provided Murekatete with transport fee, that they just met in Nyabugogo Park and boarded together and she also states that as an adult Murekatete could not act contrary to her will. [7] She further adds that she spent ten months in Oman, that she came back to Rwanda for burial of her elder sister and she was replaced on her job , that she was arrested on her way back with Murekatete, to search for another job, that in Kampala, RWANDA LAW REPORTS 106

## Page 290

they were to meet Fatima also known as Lydia who was going to facilitate them in that journey, she had previously comminucated with the latter via a phone call, that she got the Lydia’s telephone address from Mukakabano Nadia Yazida whom she met while they were both working in Oman, she had also informed Fatima that she will come together with Murekatete Amina. [8] Counsel Assumani Minsiragwira states that the prosecution does not produce concrete evidence except Murekatete Amina’s statements which do not indicate that Nyirabagenzi Mariam was also in the plot to take her to Oman in 2014. He adds that Nyirabagenzi did not premeditate human trafficking because the fact that she was arrested being together with Murekatete, it can not be qualified as human trafficking, rather it would be human trafficking in case she took her without others being aware, in addition, Murekatete Amina also wanted to go and search for a job. He concludes by stating that the the elements of evidence produced by the prosecution are doubtable because the market place, buyer and the price have not been established, that basing on the provisions of article 165 of the Law relating to the code of criminal procedure, the benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of the accused. Hence Nyirabagenzi should be acquitted. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [9] The Court finds, the Prosecution case against Nyirabagenzi Mariam for the offence of human trafficking bases on the facts that Nyirabagenzi Mariam was arrested at Gatuna border taking Murekatete Amina, they didn’t know the place of destination except stating that they are going to search 107 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 291

for a job in Oman and also there are people they didn’t know who were going to arrange for them, travel documents and transport fee. [10] The Court finds that in her pleadings and her statements during investigation, Nyirabagenzi Mariam states that she lived in Oman as domestic worker, and she came back, but later she wanted to go back to Oman to look for a job because she was living in poor welfare, she asked Murekatete’s mother if her daughter still wants to go to Oman so that they go together, because when she was still working there, she learnt that the former wanted to go there. The court finds that she also says that they would have been facilitated by Fatima (Lydia) who lives in Kenya where the company which facilitates people to be hired is located, that they didnot know each other, they just communicated on the phone, she got her phone adress from Mukakabano Nadia. [11] The Court finds that in her interrogation before judicial police, Murekatete Amina stated that she didn’t know Nyirabagenzi Mariam, that they got in touch through Murekatete Amina’s mother who convinced her to go to Oman to search for a job, her mother told her that she would be well off and that in 2014, by the intermediary of her mother, Mama Mudasiru wanted to take her to Oman but she refused because she had a toddler. The Court further finds that she stated that they would have met unknown person at the border of Uganda and Kenya who was supposed to give them a flight ticket to Oman and that she didn’t know the person she was going to work for. [12] In analysis of the statements of the Prosecution, Nyirabagenzi and Murekatete Amina, the Court finds that since RWANDA LAW REPORTS 108

## Page 292

2014, Murekatete Amina has been targeted and pursuaded to go and work in Oman because the one named Mama Mudasiru found travel documents for her but she didn’t travel due to the fact that she had a toddler. The Court also finds that in 2017, by intermediary of her mother, Nyirabagenzi Mariam has also pursuaded her to got to Oman promising her to find a job and that they will travel together, and later, they were arrested at Gatuna border stating that they go to Uganda where they had to meet a person who had to arrange them to travel to Oman. [13] The Court finds that during that journey, Murekatete didn’t know the destination, how and who will facilitate her in that travel and what she will do upon her arrival. The Court finds that Nyirabagenzi was fully aware of the traveland destination because she looked for her and requested her to go together to search for a job in Oman, Nyirabagenzi knew the route because she recalls the names of the person named Fatima (Lydia) who would helped them once they reach Uganda and she adds that they used to communicate with the latter by phone call after getting her phone number from Mukakabano Nadia. The Court finds that Nyirabagenzi also reveals that Fatima known as Lydia helped other girls to leave for Oman. [14] The Court finds that article 250 1o of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code provides that human trafficking means the acts by which the individual becomes a commodity consisting in recruitment, transfer of a person to another part of the country or to another country by use of deception, threat, force or coercion, position of authority over the person, in most cases for the purpose of harming his/her life or unlawfully exploiting by indecent assault, prostitution, unlawful practices, practices similar to 109 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 293

slavery by torturing and subjecting to cruel treatment or domestic servitude because he/she is vulnerable due to troubles with the authorities, being a single pregnant woman, ill, disabled or due to other situation which impairs a normal person to act. [15] The Court finds, those motivations comply with the provisions of article 3 of the additional protocol supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime of 15 November 2000 to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, ratified by Rwanda on 26 September 2003, that article also states that the consent of a victim in trafficking in persons is irrelevant.1 [16] The Court further finds that article 251 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above provides that any person who participates in any way, personally or through an intermediary , in trafficking a person out of Rwanda to a foreign country by means of deception, use of force, threat or

1Article 3 of Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime (15/11/2000), provides that : for the purposes of this Protocol : a.« Trafficking in persons » shall men the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of o person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other form of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. b. The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 110

## Page 294

any other form of coercion, taking advantage of his/her troubles with the authorities, conflict with the law , being an orphan, a destitute, lonely, limited knowledge, hard labour, living in a family with children close in age, unemployment, disease, physical or mental disability, a loophole in the law or any other situation likely to impair a normal person to act. [17] In analyzing the provisions of those articles, the Court finds that for the human trafficking to be qualified as an offence, there has to be three elements namely recruitment of a person, transfer of a person to another part, the means used such as use of force, deception and threat, and intention pursued like harming his/her life or unlawfully exploiting her or him. [18] Considering the provisions of articles above together with article 27 of the Organic Law N° 01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 which provides for attempt to commit an offence, the Court finds that the acts for which Nyirabagenzi Mariam is being prosecuted of recruiting, pursuading and taking Murekatete Amina from Rwanda to Oman whereby she was convincing her that she will get a good job and have good welfare, her plot was foiled by their arrest at Gatuna border, this constitutes the attempt of the offence of participating in trafficking a person out of the country instead of being qualified as an offence of human trafficking provided by article 252 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above. [19] The Court finds the statements of Nyirabagenzi that by taking Murekatete she did not intend for human trafficking, that she is mature and she also wanted to find a job are without merit, because considering the way she looked for Murekatete through her mother as an intermediary and she convinced them that they can go to Oman knowing that Murekatete does not 111 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 295

have travel documents, and consedering that she was in touch with an unknown person whom she used to talk to, who would arrange them in Uganda to find travel documents and to provide them air ticket, Nyirabagenzi does not also show what they should do as compensation of that service, The Court finds, all these circumstances prove that Nyirabagenzi Mariam was aware that her acts were to traffic a person out of the country taking advantage of her indigence because of unemployment. [20] The Court finds the fact that Murekatete is an adult and she also wanted to go can not prevent Nyirabagenzi for being prosecuted because Murekatete was trafficked by means of deception taking advantage of her being poor and single mother, this lead her to decide to go away. In addition, international convention related to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children mentioned, provides that the consent of a victim of trafficking in persons is irrelevant. Whether Mukakabano Nadia Yazida giving out telephone number of the person who was supposed to facilitate Nyirabagenzi and Murekatete to find official documents to travel to Oman proves the role in the commission of the offence [21] The prosecution states that Nyirabagenzi Mariam testifies against Mukakabano Nadia Yazida for having connected her with Fatima also known as Lydia, the latter would have helped them in their journey to Oman, the Prosecution adds that Mukakabano confesses for having given telephone adress to Nyirabagenzi and she told Nyirabagenzi that Lydia helped other two girls to travel, it adds that the telephone address which she provided was of paramount importance for RWANDA LAW REPORTS 112

## Page 296

Nyirabagenzi Mariam to traffick Murekatete and she was collaborating with Fatima( Lydia) in trafficking of persons to Oman because she knew other people she facilitated and these include Sayidati and Dalila and she knew that Fatima can also find travel documents for Nyirabagenzi and her colleague to leave for Oman. [22] The prosecution further states that the offence of human trafficking is not committed by one person but by various groups of persons, that Lydia would have passed them to others,who would also have handed them to others and it would have continued in such way till they fulfill their intention, that this offence can not be compared to other ordinary trade, human trafficking is determined by destination and purpose intended such as prostitution, forced labour, slavery or practices similar to slavery, body mutilation, and it adds that the job, the salary and the employer for Murekatete were not revealed. [23] Mukakabano Nadia Yazida states that the Prosecution does not indicate the place where Murekatete was to be sold, the buyer and the price. She explained that she lived in Oman since 2012 to 2014, where she got to know Nyirabagenzi Mariam by whastapp group of Rwandans living in Oman and after their return to Rwanda, they met again, she also came to know others including Salima and Ines who went back to Oman and they got jobs through a company situated in Kenya. She states that Salima is the one who connected her to Lydia, a Burundian who works for that company in Kenya, so that she facilitates her travel once she needs to go back there, it is in that circumstance that she got Lydia’s phone adress, and she passed it to Nyirabagenzi when she informed her that she wants to go back to Oman, so that Lydia helps her in finding a job. 113 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 297

[24] She adds that she can not remember when she gave that phone adress to Nyirabagenzi and that the latter did not inform her what she talked with Lydia and she was not informed of her travel with Murekatete as well. She adds that Nyirabagenzi Mariam as an adult who lived in Oman, knows that there are no human trafficking in Oman, and that no one can face criminal acts because on arrival to Oman, you first check with the police and conclude a contract with the employer before police and at the termination of the contract, you go back to the police for approval of your departure that Murekatete as an adult, no one would have influenced her. [25] Counsel Minsiragwira Assumani argues that the fact that Mukakabano Nadia Yazida gave out the phone number, it is not an act which constitutes the offence of human trafficking, it does not also constitute complicity because the moment they are in Oman, they stay there legally, therefore, she should be acquitted basing on article 165 of the Law relating to the code of criminal procedure. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [26] The Court finds that Mukakabano Nadia Yazida admits to have given Fatima’s phone adress to Nyirabagenzi Mariam, who was supposed to find for her travel documents to go and work in Oman. The Court also finds that Mukakabano states that she has not yet met with Fatima, that she got her number through another girl called Salima, so that she contacts her when she wants to go back because she works at a recruitment company in Kenya. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 114

## Page 298

[27] The Court further finds that during the interrogation as well as in the hearing, Nyirabagenzi states that Mukakabano Nadia is the one who connected her to Lydia whom they would have met in Kampala and she had promised her that the latter will get travel documents for them. She adds that she informed Lydia that she will come together with Murekatete and that it is Nadia who gave, Lydia’s phone number to Sayidati and Dalira who left before. [28] In analysis of the provisionsof article 251 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above, the Court finds that to participate in trafficking persons can be committed in different forms, either personnaly or through an intermediary. The Court finds that by providing the phone number, Mukakabano Nadia connected Nyirabagenzi Mariam, Murekatete Amina to Fatima (Lydia), whom they were to meet in Kampala, The latter was supposed to help them in getting the travel documents, therefore, this proves Mukakabano’s role in trafficking persons from Rwanda to a foreign country. [29] The Court finds her denying the role she had in the commission of the offence on the ground that she only issued the phone number is without merit, because considering her explanation of how she knew Fatima( Lydia) together with that of, Nyirabagenzi on how Mukakabano gave her Fatima( Lydia) phone number and also told her that Fatima helped other girls, and she promised her that Fatima will assist them to get travel documents and a job as well, and later, Nyirabagenzi talked to Lydia informing her that she will come with Murekatete, all these prove that Mukakabano Nadia Yazida collaborates with Fatima(Lydia) in Kampala, since she is also aware that the persons she sent are subject to human trafficking as she also 115 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 299

talks about other girls living in Oman without demonstrating their occupation, she also revealed to Nyirabagenzi other girls who left for Oman arranged by Fatima (Lydia) as intermediary but their location is unknown. [30] The Court finds, the fact that Mukakabano Nadia and Murekatete Amina didn’t know each other and she was also not aware of her plot with Nyirabagenzi Mariam, does not prove that she had no role in attempt of trafficking her out of the country as motivated above, she participated by connecting them to Fatima (Lydia) by giving them her phone number and she promised them that Fatima will facilitate them to obtain a job and travel documents to Oman , and also it is not necessary to know each other, instead, what has to be considered is her participation in trafficking her out of the country and intent they had. [31] However, considering the provisions of article 27 of the Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above, which relates to the attempt to commit an offence, the Court finds the act of Mukakabano Nadia constitutes the offence of attempt of participating in trafficking persons out of the country, because Murekatete was stopped at the border and returned back, hence the commission of the act was prevented. Sentencing [32] The Prosecution requests that Mukakabano be sentenced to ten years of imprisonment with a fine of five million. [33] Nyirabagenzi Mariam argues that she did not participate in Murekatete Amina’s departure, that she did not pursuade her, but on their way, they were both communicating with those RWANDA LAW REPORTS 116

## Page 300

supposed to receive them. She adds that she has to look after her elder sister’s children who have chronic disease and that no one else would take care of them in case she is imprisoned because her mother is an old woman, that’s why she decided to go back to Oman to search for a job. [34] Mukakabano Nadia Yazida states that she requested the Prosecution to produce the conversation she had on the phone with Fatima (Lydia), but it failed, that she also informed the Prosecution that she has children including the one who dropped out of school but this was not considered. [35] Counsel Assumani Minsiragwira assisting them, argues that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were going to traffic Murekatete Amina, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of article 165 of the Law relating to the code of criminal procedure his clients be aquitted because the benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of the accused. [36] Article 251 provides that any person who participates in any way, personally or through an intermediary , in trafficking a person out of Rwanda to a foreign country by: 1° means of deception, use of force, threat or any other form of coercion; 2° taking advantage of his/her troubles with the authorities, conflict with the law, being an orphan, a destitute, lonely, limited knowledge, hard labour, living in a family with children close in age, unemployment, disease, physical or mental disability, a loophole in the law or any other situation likely to impair a normal person to act; shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years and a fine of five hundred thousand (500,000) to two million (2,000,000) Rwandan francs. 117 PROSECUTION v. MUKAKABANO ET.AL

## Page 301

[37] As motivated in previous paragraphs, the Court finds that the acts of Nyirabagenzi Mariam and Mukakabano Nadia Yazida constitute the attempt of participating in trafficking persons out of the country because it was proven that Nyirabagenzi Mariam pusuaded Murakatete Amina to go to Oman and she was also arrested on the way taking her, whereas Mukakabano Nadia Yazida connected them to Fatima (Lydia) whom they would have found in Kampala to facilitate their travel to Oman. [38] The Court finds that basing on the provisions of article 251 of the organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above and article 30 of the same organic Law which provides for sentencing of an attempt to commit a felony or a misdemeanour, each one is sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of 500,000Frw. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [39] Finds Nyirabagenzi Mariam and Mukakabano Nadia Yazida guilty of attempt of participating in trafficking persons out of the country. [40] Sentences each of them to one year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of 500,000Frw [41] Orders that the court fees be charged to the public treasury. [42] Reminds that an appeal must be filed within a period of one (1) month from the pronouncement of the judgement.

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 118

## Page 302

PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT – RPAA0021/14/CS – RPAA0022/14/CS (Mukanyundo, P.J., Hitiyaremye and Munyangeri, J.) October 13, 2017] Criminal Law – Penalty reduction – Mitigating circumstances – It is the judge who considers the appropriateness of mitigating circumstances – When the offence was committed with severe cruelty, it can be a motive of not reducing the penalty – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 71. Criminal Law – The criminal liability of the accomplice – The fact that the accused was at the crime scene even though his role was not active, his presence encouraged the author because if he had refused to accompany him, the latter might have been discouraged to go and kill the deceased, this also renders the victim unable to defend himself as he thought he cannot defend himself against both of them, this conduct puts him in the category of an accomplice of the offender – Organic Law No01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 98. Facts: This case started at the Intermediate Court of Muhanga where the Prosecution accused Uzabakiriho Bernard and Ntabanganyimana Félicien of murder of Nteziryayo Anastase which was committed in the night of 06/12/2013, that they killed him by slashing his neck, arms and his back with a machete, both confessed at the beginning of the investigation. 119

## Page 303

The Court rendered the judgment RP0534/13/TGI/MHG on 09/01/2014, convicting the accused of murder, and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment, without reducing the penalty despite their confession from the beginning of the case basing on the fact that Ntabanganyimana Félicien premeditated the commission of the offence, whereas for Uzabakiriho Bernard, before the Court he contradicted his prior statements and did not reveal the truth. Both the accused appealed to the High Court, chamber of Nyanza, and on 20/03/2018 that Court rendered the judgment RPA0075/014/HC/NYA- RPA0083/014/HC/NYA, holding that even though Ntabanganyimana Félicien pleads guilty, his penalty cannot be reduced because he is trying to conceal the role of his brother Uzabakiriho Bernard in the murder, whereas, there is incriminating evidence against him, therefore the Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence meted to each of them by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga. Not satisfied with that decision, the accused appealed again to the Supreme Court, explaining that Ntabanganyimana boozed together with late Nteziryayo Anastase in the bar, and later, they fought and out of the anger Ntabanganyimana went home to wake up his young brother Uzabakiriho and requested him to escort him to go and revenge himself which the latter agreed. When the deceased saw them he ran and fell into a pothole of water and Ntabanganyimana slashed his arm, neck, and at the back with a machete and killed him. Ntabanganyimana Félicien requests for a penalty reduction stating that he pleaded guilty but the previous Courts sentenced him to a severe penalty, for Uzabakiriho Bernard, he states that the previous Courts disregarded his arguments that the offence was committed by Ntabanganyimana Félicien, and convicted RWANDA LAW REPORTS 120

## Page 304

him without investigation, however before this Court, he confessed for having been accomplice of his elder brother. The Prosecution states that the fact that Ntabanganyimana went to wake up his young brother and they went together, when the deceased tried to escape, he ran after him and slashed his arm, neck and the back with a machete until he killed him without disengaging from committing the offence. This proves that the offence he committed was premeditated, it noted that this conduct is an aggravating circumstance, whereas for Uzabakiriho, the Prosecution states that he participated in the killing of the deceased as accomplice of his elder brother because he stood by and watched as the victim was being murdered with a machete (participation passive), this is considered as giving audacity to the author, the Prosecution concludes praying that the Supreme Court sustains the rulings of the High Court. Held: 1. Even though Ntabanganyimana Félicien confesses the offence, his penalty cannot be reduced due to the cruelty in which he committed the offence because the judge is under no obligation to reduce the penalty of the accused who confesses the offence if she/he finds that the offence was committed with cruelty. 2. The fact that the accused was at the crime scene even though his role was not active, his presence encouraged the author because if he had refused to accompany him, the latter might have been discouraged to go and kill the deceased, this also renders the victim unable to defend himself as he thought he cannot defend himself against both of them, this conduct puts him in the category of an accomplice of the offender. 121 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL

## Page 305

3. Even though Uzabakiriho Bernard was accomplice in the killing of Nteziryayo Anastase, his role is not at the same degree as that of Ntabanganyimana Félicien who plotted the murder of the deceased and committed it with cruelty, on that ground he has to be sentenced to ten (10) years of imprisonment. Ntabanganyimana’s appeal lacks merit. Uzabakiriho’s appeal has merit in part Court fees to the public treasury Statute and statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code, article 71,78, 98 and 99. Case laws referred to: Prosecution v. Nshutirakiza Narcisse, RPA0047/11/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 27/03/2015. Autors cited: Jean Pradel, Droit Pénal Général, 20ème édition, P. 405. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case started at the Intermediate Court of Muhanga where the Prosecution accused Uzabakiriho Bernard and Ntabanganyimana Félicien of murder of Nteziryayo Anastase which was committed in the night of 06/12/2013, that they RWANDA LAW REPORTS 122

## Page 306

killed him by slashing his neck, arms and his back with a machete, both confessed at the beginning of the investigation. [2] The Court rendered the judgment RP0534/13/TGI/MHG on 09/01/2014, convicting the accused of murder, and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment, without reducing the penalty despite their confession from the beginning of the case. The Court decided that Ntabanganyimana Félicien cannot benefit from penalty reduction because of he premeditated the commission of the offence, whereas for Uzabakiriho Bernard, the Court ruled that the penalty cannot be reduced because before the Court he contradicted his prior statements and did not reveal the truth. [3] Ntabanganyimana Félicien and Uzabakiriho Bernard appealed to the High Court, chamber of Nyanza, and on 20/03/2018 that Court rendered the judgment RPA0075/014/HC/NYA- RPA0083/014/HC/NYA, holding that even if Ntabanganyimana Félicien pleads guilty, he should not benefit the penalty reduction because he is trying to conceal the role of his brother Uzabakiriho Bernard in the murder, whereas, there is incriminating evidence against him, therefore the Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence meted to each of them by the Intermediate Court of Muhanga. [4] Not satisfied with that decision, Ntabanganyimana Félicien and Uzabakiriho Bernard appealed again to the Supreme Court, Ntabanganyimana Félicien requesting for a penalty reduction stating that he pleaded guilty but the previous Courts sentenced him to a severe penalty, for Uzabakiriho Bernard, he states that the previous Courts disregarded his arguments that the offence was committed by Ntabanganyimana Félicien, and convicted him without investigation, however 123 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL

## Page 307

before this Court, he confessed for having been accomplice of his elder brother. [5] The hearing was held in public on 18/09/2017, Ntabanganyimana Félicien assisted by Counsel Dushimire Jeannette and Uzabakiriho Bernard assisted by Counsel Nzabarantumye Augustin, and the Prosecution was represented by Munyaneza Nkwaya Eric, the National Prosecutor. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES With regard to Ntabanganyimana Félicien Whether Ntabanganyimana Félicien’s confession is sincere, so that it can serve as mitigating circumstances [6] Ntabanganyimana Félicien states that he is not contended with the appealed judgment because he pleaded guilty from the beginning, but the Courts disregarded it and sentenced him to severe penalty without reducing it, therefore, he requests the penalty to be reduced because he was sentenced to severe punishment whereas the law provides that she would benefit penalty reduction to ten (10) years of imprisonment. [7] With regard to the commission of the offence, Ntabanganyimana Félicien explains that he boozed together with late Nteziryayo Anastase in the bar, and later, they fought but people who were around intervened and stopped the fight. He states that due to the anger caused by the acts of the deceased, he went to wake up his brother Uzabakiriho Bernard and informed him that he has just had a fight with someone and he is going to revenge, he asked his brother to escort him and Uzabakiriho agreed. Ntabanganyimana Félicien further more RWANDA LAW REPORTS 124

## Page 308

says that the deceased ran when he saw them, Ntabanganyimana Félicien ran after him but the the deceased fell into pothole of water and Ntabanganyimana Félicien caught and slashed his arm, neck, and at the back with a machete and killed him, he returned back and told his young brother Uzabakiriho Bernard that he has just killed Nteziryayo Anastase with whom he had conflicts, he also asked him not to reveal it to any one. He concludes by saying that he acted alone in murdering Nteziryayo Anastase, and that his young brother had no role in the commission of the offence except that he accompaned him, knew the commission of that offence and concealed it. [8] Counsel Dushimire Jeannette states that in previous Courts, Ntabanganyimana Félicien concealed the role of his young brother in the commission of the offence, but before this Court he is revealing the truth by demonstrating that there was complicity whereby his young brother agreed to escort him, hence, he deserves penalty reduction. [9] The Prosecutor contends that Ntabanganyimana Félicien’s appeal lacks merit because he premeditated the offence is accused of, with the motive of revenging after the fight he had with the deceased. The prosecutor futher states that Ntabanganyimana Félicien statements intending to prove that he was provoked should not be considered, that in examining them, the Court should be guided by the judgment of the Prosecution v. Mbanzamihigo Jean Pierre, RPA0274/08/CS rendered by the Supreme Court on 07/01/2011, whereby the Court based on the writings of the Law scholar Jean Claude Soyer regarding the self defense and provocation, he states that when a provoked person committs an offence sometime later, it is considered as a 125 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL

## Page 309

revenge, in other words, he takes the law into his own hands instead of resorting to justice. [10] The Prosecutor further states that concerning the case at hand, Ntabanganyimana Félicien revenged himself because it took a while after he fought with Nteziryayo Anastase without disengaging from committing the offence. The prosecutor argues that this is demonstrated by the fact that Ntabanganyimana Félicien went to wake up his young brother and they went together, when the deceased tried to escape, he ran after him and slashed his arm, neck and at the back with a machete until he killed him, this proves that the offence he committed was premeditated, this conduct is aggravating circumstance, for that reason, the Prosecutor prays that the Supreme Court sustains the rulings of the High Court. THE VIEW OF THE COURT [11] Article 71 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code provides that the judge shall determine a penalty according to the gravity of the offence taking into account offender’s motives, history and background, circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and individual circumstances. [12] The documents of the case file demonstrate that Ntabanganyimana Félicien admitted having killed Nteziryayo Anastase with a machete, before this Court, he explains that the deceased ran when he saw them waiting to ambush him, Ntabanganyimana ran after him but the late fell in pothole of water, Ntabanganyimana Félicien slashed his arms, neck and his back with a machete till he killed him. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 126

## Page 310

[13] The Supreme Court finds that Ntabanganyimana Félicien cruelly murdered Nteziryayo Anastase as also demonstrated by the medical report and photos of the deceased’s body contained in the case file, they indicate that he was killed with a machete to the extent that his hand was cut off, all those have to be considered in determining the penalty as provided by article 71 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above. [14] The Supreme Court finds that even though Ntabanganyimana Félicien confesses the offence, the judge is under no obligation to reduce the penalty if she/he finds that the offence was committed with cruelty as it was done by Ntabanganyimana Félicien. This precedent was also upheld in the judgment of the Prosecution v. Nshutirakiza Narcisse, RPA0047/11/CS rendered on 27/03/2015 whereby the accused pleaded guilty but the Court refused to reduce the penalty because of cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatments used in murdering his wife by cutting different parts of her body with a machete.1 [15] Considering the laws and motivations provided above, the Supreme Court finds that Ntabanganyimana Félicien’s appeal lacks merit, hence, the life imprisonment he was sentenced to by the High Court, chamber of Nyanza in the judgment RPA0075/14/HC/NYA-RPA0083/14/HC/NYA rendered on 09/01/2014 is sustained.

1 The Supreme Court, Law Report, V.3-July 2016, P.189-194. 127 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL

## Page 311

B. With regard to Uzabakiriho Bernard Dertemining the role of Uzabakiriho Bernard in the murder of Nteziryayo Anastase. [16] Uzabakiriho Bernard admits his complicity in the death of the late Nteziryayo Anastase, and for this reason, he requests for forgiveness. He explains that Ntabanganyimana Félicien came at around 8h00 PM wounded and had lost a tooth, he woke him up and requested to accompany him, Uzabakiriho Bernard asked him where they are going and he replied that he is going to revenge against a person who had beaten him, thus they went together. He further states that on their way they met a person who got afraid when he saw them and ran, Ntabanganyimana Félicien ran after him and hit him with a machete, he returned and told Uzabakiriho that he has killed him but he ordered him not to reveal it, and also the latter decided to keep the secret for his elder brother. [17] He adds that he is remorseful for having escorted his elder brother after he was told that he was going to avenge himself, that if he had refused to escort him, he would not have gone, that he went due to the emotions for his elder brother because he was injured whereas he went when he was in good health, and that he thought that although his elder brother was going to revenge himself, he could also die. [18] His counsel, Adv. Nzabarabantumye Augustin states that Uzabakiriho Bernard did nothing wrong because he saw his elder brother taking the machete, and he thought that he would be attacked, for that reason he accepted to accompany him, so that he intervenes in case anything happens to him. He argues that the fact that Uzabakiriho Bernard admits having RWANDA LAW REPORTS 128

## Page 312

accompanied his elder brother well knowing that he was going to carry out criminal act, that is direct role in the death of the late Nteziryayo Anastase, therefore, it should be a ground for reducing the penalty. [19] The Prosecutor contends that Uzabakiriho Bernard participated in the killing of Nteziryayo Anastase as accomplice of his elder brother Ntabanganyimana Félicien because he stood by and watched as the victim was being murdered with a machete (participation passive), this is considered as increasing the audacity of his brother as was held in the case of the Prosecutor v. Kayishema Clėment and Ruzindana Obed rendered on 01/08/2001 by International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which had its headquarters in Arusha. [20] Article 78, 1º of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 instituting the penal code provides that if there are mitigating circumstances, the reduction of penalties shall be as follows : life imprisonment or life imprisonment with special provisions is replaced by a penalty of imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years. [21] Article 98, Paragraph 1, Litera 3 of the aforementioned Organic Law, provides that an accomplice is a person knowingly aids or abets the offender in preparing, facilitating or committing the offence, or a person who incites the offender, whereas article 99 of the same Organic Law provides that the accomplice is not subject to the same penalty as the offender or co-offender, except in cases where the law provides otherwise or when the judge in his/her discretion finds that the accomplice’s responsibility in the commission of the offence is the same as or greater than that of the principal offender. 129 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL

## Page 313

[22] The Law scholar Jean Pradel demonstrates that sometimes the presence of the one accused as an accomplice at the crime scene makes the criminals to have the audacity to execute their plot or weakening the resistance of their victim. Therefore, the fact that the accused was at the crime scene on the side of the offender, even though his role was not active, being with the author is considerable assistance, which should be taken into consideration in prosecuting him. (...Un auteur avait noté à juste titre qu’il peut se faire qu’à elle seule la présence sur les lieux du prévenu…ait pour résultat d’accroître l’audace des malfaiteurs ou d’affaiblir la résistance de leur victime. Cette attitude physiquement passive comporte alors une aide psychologique positive et efficace qui doit être prise en considération au même titre).2 [23] Before this Court, Uzabakiriho Bernard admits that he went together with his elder brother Ntabanganyimana Félicien after the latter had told him that he had a fight with someone and he has to revenge himself, he took the machete and Uzabakiriho followed him, when they met Nteziryayo Anastase, he became afraid when he saw that they were two and he immediately ran, Ntabanganyimana Félicien ran after him and repeatedly slashed him with a machete, and Uzabakiriho Bernard did not intervene. The Supreme Court finds that this conduct encouraged his elder brother in the commission of the offence because if he had refused to accompany him, the latter might have been discouraged to go and kill the deceased, or if he went, the deceased might have defended himself. This was not the case because the victim became afraid when he saw that they were two, and ran because he thought he could not fight

2 Jean Pradel, Droit Pénal Général, 20e édition, P. 405. RWANDA LAW REPORTS 130

## Page 314

with both of them. That conduct puts him in the category of an accomplice of the author of the offence as stipulated by article 98 paragraph one (1), litera 3 of Organic Law N°01/2012/OL of 02/05/2012 mentioned above. [24] The Supreme Court finds that even if Uzabakiriho Bernard was accomplice in the killing of Nteziryayo Anastase, his role is not at the same degree as that of Ntabanganyimana Félicien who plotted the murder of the deceased and committed it with cruelty as motivated above, especially that he confesses and requests for forgiveness, therefore, pursuant to article 78, 1° and 99 of aforementioned Organic Law N°01/2012/OL, Uzabakiriho Bernard must be sentenced to ten (10) years of imprisonment. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [25] Decides that the appeal lodged by Ntabanganyimana Félicien lacks merit. [26] Decides that the appeal lodged by Uzabakiriho Bernard has merit in part [27] Sustains the life imprisonment meted to Ntabanganyimana Félicien by the High Court, chamber of Nyanza. [28] Decides that the rulings of the case RPA0075/14/HC/NYA-RPA0083/14/HC/NYA is modified with regard to Uzabakiriho Bernard 131 PROSECUTION v. UZABAKIRIHO ET.AL

## Page 315

RWANDA LAW REPORTS 132

[29] Sentences Uzabakiriho Bernard to ten (10) years of imprisonment [30] Orders that the court fees be charged to the public treasury.

## Page 316

Printed by PROGRAPH LTD P.o. Box 1882 Kigali - Rwanda Tel : (+250) 788303889 E-mail:hakizae2007@yahoo.fr