TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL. v TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL

TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL. v TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2021-06-25 - Case/document no.: RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC - Collection: Supreme Court

Text

Page 1

TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL. v TWAGIRAYEZU ET AL [Rwanda SUPREME COURT –RS/INJUST/RC 00007/2020/SC (Ntezilyayo, P.J., Cyanzayire, Nyirinkwaya, Hitiyaremye and Karimunda, J.) June 25, 2021] Judicial procedure – Losing a case on the first and second instances for the same reasons – Judicial plagiarism – The Second appeal – We talk of judicial plagiarism when the appellate court happens to entirely plagiarise the litigants' submissions or the entire decision of the appealed judgment without indicating the reference thereof – The foregoing cannot be construed as losing a case for same grounds yet the appellate court has just copied the entire wording of the previous court’s decision without mentioning whether it concurs with the appealed ruling – Nonetheless, judicial plagiarism can neither be taken for reference-based motivation, as the latter is pre-conditioned on the prior analysis of whether parties have filed their appeals with new arguments, and the appellate Court has to as well acknowledge that with regard to the appeal, it concurs with the previous court’s decision, if at all it intends to thereof take a similar stance. Facts: This case started from the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Twagirayezu Alice and her siblings suing their brother Twagirayezu Albert, and requesting for the revocation of the plot sale agreement that their brother Twagirayezu Albert had concluded with late

Niyongira, the husband to Mrs. Umumaranyota. Twagirayezu claimed that the sold plot belonged to the family and it was sold without informing her. The Intermediate Court of Gasabo held that the sold plot belongs to Twagirayezu Albert as he produced all documents proving his ownership of the disputed plot; the Court found that the elements of evidence produced by the claimants were obtained after the contested plot sale, it has therefore held that the plot sale agreement should remain as concluded. Twagirayezu Alice and her siblings appealed the above ruling to the High Court claiming that Twagirayezu Albert took advantage of their absence as they were no longer living in Rwanda and he appropriated himself of their family property and registered it under his name, she also added that had the Court investigated over this issue or had it examined their submitted evidence, it would have realised that Twagirayezu Albert could not account for the origin of the property that he misappropriates. In the hearing, Twagirayezu and her siblings failed to prove their ownership of the disputed plot and the High Court held to sustain the appealed judgment as it had been rendered by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo. Twagirayezu Alice and her siblings appealed the High Court’s ruling before the Court of Appeal, and they claimed that the High Court never bothered to examine the origin of the sold

property that Twagirayezu misappropriates and neither did the Court examine a statement that he himself wrote confirming that he sold the disputed family property with no prior permission by his siblings. Mrs. Umumaranyota raised an objection of claim inadmissibility by the Court of Appeal, arguing that the subject matter's monetary value is less than 75,000,000 Frw and that the appellants of the case have lost the very case before both the previous courts and for the same reasons. The Court of Appeal held that though the property valuers have estimated the disputed plot to be more than 75,000,000 Frw, both the High Court and the Intermediate Court of Gasabo had a sole and

Page 2

a common assignment of determining whether the disputed property belongs to Twagirayezu Albert as an individual, or whether this property belongs to the entire family of Twagirayezu Aloys, their father, and the very Court thus ruled that both courts have based their decisions on the same reasons, and therefore, the instant appeal does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Twagirayezu Alice and her siblings petitioned the President of the Supreme Court requesting the review of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal for being vitiated by injustice. The President of the Supreme Court analysed their petition and ordered to have the case re-adjudicated. Twagirayezu Albert together with Mrs. Umumaranyota raised an objection of inadmissibility against such an application for review arguing that applicants failed to produce any ground of injustice which could lead to the review of the disputed judgment, besides, those applicants have no right to request for the revocation of an agreement they have not been parties to. The Supreme Court stayed the review moving that once the President of the Supreme Court has ordered for a case review, no more objections against the hearing on the merits of the case could be raised if not for those related to public order concerns. With regard to whether the appellants have the right to request for revocation of an agreement they

have never been party to, the Supreme Court ruled that such an objection falls in the merit of the case, and it cannot be separately examined not until the Supreme Court has established that the Court of Appeal has committed an irregularity when it held that the appellants lost the case before both the High Court and the Intermediate Court for the same grounds. The Supreme Court held that due to the fact that the High Court has not motivated its ruling and that it simply and entirely copied and pasted the content of the judgment rendered by Gasabo Intermediate Court, the Court of Appeal had no reason to rule that the appellants have lost the case for the same reasons, yet the case has solely been substantiated on the first instance, therefore the second appeal should be admitted. Held: When the appellate court happens to entirely plagiarise the parties' submissions or the entire decision of the appealed judgment without indicating the reference thereof, it is referred to as judicial plagiarism. For the purpose of correction, the court that has detected such plagiarism should have the case retried. Therefore, the court that has been seized for the second appeal, might not move that the appellants have lost the case for the same reasons without both the previous court’s positions to serve it as a reference of comparison; more so that the sole existing motivation on the case,

was given on the judgment and the ruling of the very first court. The second appeal should have been admitted. Statutes and statutory instruments referred to: Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the jurisdiction of Courts, article 52. Cases referred to: Judgment RCOMAA 0051/14/CS rendered 04/12/2015 of Rwanda Revenue Authority vs SECAM Ltd, paragraph 22; Judgment RCOMAA 0038/16/CS-RCOMAA 0033/2016/SC rendered 21/04/2017 between Bank of Kigali Ltd vs Mulisa Kana Martin, paragraph 21;

Page 3

Judgment RCOMAA 0048/16/CS rendered 19/05/2017 of Rwanda Revenue Authority vs SODAR Ltd, paragraphs 17 and 18; Judgment RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC rendered 25/09/2020 of Road Solution Pavement Products vs MAILCO Ltd, paragraph 24; DiLeo vs Ernst & Young 901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990); Cojocaru v. B.C. Women’s Hosp. & Health Ctr., No. 34304, 2013 SCC 30 (Can. May 24, 2013); Stone vs City of Kiowa, 950 P.2d 1305 (Kan. 1997); State vs McDermott, 810 N.W.2d 237 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012) para 25. Authors quoted: Serge Guinchard (sous la dir.), Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Dalloz, Paris, 2014, p.1191 Judgment I.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] This case started from the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, Twagirayezu Albertine, Twagirayezu Alice, and Twagirayezu Monique, all suing their brother Twagirayezu Albert for having sold a family plot registered on UPI 1/02/10/03/4370 without informing them. They requested for the revocation of the plot sale agreement that their brother, Twagirayezu Albert concluded with Niyongira Jean Claude, the late husband to Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès, and the claimants prayed to have their property returned to them. [2] In the judgment, RC 00038/2017/TGI/GSBO rendered on 27/07/2018, the Intermediate Court of Gasabo found that Twagirayezu Albert who sold the disputed plot, had an authentic deed registered under his name, and he as well had other related property titles that were issued by the local authorities of the area; he also had the extract cadastral plan of the plot and he had been paying taxes, all to prove that he is the rightful owner of the plot n0 4370. In relation to the above, the Court declined to consider the land titles that the claimants produced as evidence of their plea since these titles were issued to them in 2014 yet the disputed plot was sold in 2012, adding to the fact that the claimants' witnesses who were to testify about their cause did not appear before the Court, leave alone that looking at the case, their testimonies were not convincing enough to rebut the evidence that Twagirayezu Albert has produced. The Court has therefore moved that though Twagirayezu Albert is not indicating the origin of the disputed property, the evidence he has presented to the Court indicates that the disputed property belongs to him. Therefore, the Court ruled that the plot sale agreement of 22/02/2012 stays as agreed since it was legally concluded.

Page 4

[3] Twagirayezu Albertine, together with Twagirayezu Alice, Twagirayezu Alphonsine, and Twagirayezu Monique appealed the above ruling to the High Court claiming that their brother Twagirayezu Albert took advantage of their absence since they were no longer living in Rwanda and registered the family property under his own names and sold it. They added that had the Court investigated the issue or if it analysed the evidence they had submitted, it would have realised that Twagirayezu Albert could not explain the origin of the property he misappropriated to himself and sold out. [4] In the judgment, RCA 00291/2018/HC/KIG rendered on 31/02/2019, the High Court found that by the time Twagirayezu Albert sold the disputed plot to Niyongira Jean Claude, he had all the elements of evidence proving his ownership of the sold plot, and the very evidence gave him the full right to sell it. The fact that his opponents have nothing to prove their ownership of the disputed property is another aspect that proves that the sold plot belongs to Twagirayezu Albert, and the High Court held to stay the ruling of the judgment RC 00038/2017/TGI/GSBO of 27/07/2018 as it was decided by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo, and it ordered to the claimants to pay to Mrs. Umumaranyota 250,000 Frw for Counsel fee and 100, 000 Frw to compensate her for a procedural fee. [5] Twagirayezu Albertine together with

Twagirayezu Alice, Twagirayezu Alphonsine and Twagirayezu Monique, appealed the above decision to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the High Court never bothered to examine the origin of the property that their brother Twagirayezu Albert had sold, and neither did it consider a statement that Twagirayezu himself wrote confirming that he sold the family plot with no prior permission of his siblings. The claimants added that the High Court disregarded the submitted purchase agreement of 01/11/1984 concluded between Icyimpaye Marie Rose and Kavamahanga together with the then witnesses’ testimonies yet those were the sound facts that could help clarify about the origin of the disputed property. [6] Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès raised an objection of inadmissibility, stating that the sale agreement for which the claimants sought revocation is of a plot that cost 10,000,000 Frw only, which means that the subject matter is less than 75,000,000 Frw as so provided by article 52 of the Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of Courts, and she added that she again objects to the admissibility of this case owing to another fact that the claimants have lost this case before both the High Court and the Intermediate Court and for the same reasons. [7] In judgment, RCAA 00020/2019/CA rendered on 26/06/2020, the Court of Appeal found that the property valuers estimated the plot in

UPI 1/02/10/03/4370 at a monetary value of 92,825,000 Frw, but still, the Court of Appeal found that both the High Court and the Intermediate Court were solely and uniformly requested to determine whether the sold property belonged to Twagirayezu Albert or the family of Twagirayezu Aloys, their father. The Court of Appeal found that both Courts based their ruling on the same reasons. The seized court therefore declared itself incompetent to hear the lodged appeal and it ordered the claimants to jointly pay to Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès 500,000 Frw for both Counsel and procedural fees. [8] Twagirayezu Albertine together with Twagirayezu Alice, Twagirayezu Alphonsine, and Twagirayezu Monique, petitioned the President of the Supreme Court praying to have the judgment RCAA 00020/2019/CA of 26/06/2020 rendered by the Court of Appeal, reviewed for injustice- related grounds. Following the analysis of their petition, the President of the Supreme Court issued a

Page 5

writ 058/CJ/2020 of 19/11/2020 and sent the case to the Registry of the Supreme Court for it to be retried. [9] The hearing was conducted in public on 02/06/2021, with Twagirayezu Albertine, together with Twagirayezu Alice, Twagirayezu Alphonsine, and Twagirayezu Monique represented by Counsel Nshuti Salim and Counsel Kazeneza Théophile while Twagirayezu Albert was represented by Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard, whereas Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès was represented by Counsel Nsengiyumva Viateur. [10] The Court had to first analyze the objections raised by both Twagirayezu Albert and Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès who first invoked the inadmissibility of the claim arguing that the claimants failed to prove the injustice leading to the judgment review, as they also argued that the claimants not entitled to request for the revocation of an agreement to which they have never been parties. [11] With regard to the objection related to the lack of highlighted injustice, with reference to paragraph one of article 621 and article 632 of the Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 determining the Jurisdiction of Courts; based on the analysis made in the case of Busoro Gervais vs Busoro Mugunga Désiré et al. whereby the Court held that once the President of the Supreme Court has ordered for a case review, no more objections shall be raised; if not the objections with public order concerns3; the Court, on the bench,

therefore moved not to admit the raised objection. [12] With regard to the objection related to the fact that the claimants have no capacity to request for the revocation of an agreement, they have not been parties to, though such ground was raised as an objection, such an objection falls in the merits of the case, and it cannot be separately examined not until the Supreme Court has established that the Court of Appeal has committed an irregularity when it held that the appellants lost the case before both the High Court and the Intermediate Court and thus for the same reasons. [13] Having declared inadmissible the objections raised by the legal counsel of both Twagirayezu Albert and Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès, the Court proceeded to the determination of whether the Court of Appeal should have admitted the second appeal on this case. II. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE Whether the Court of Appeal should have admitted the second appeal filed by Twagirayezu Alice et Al. [14] Counsel Nshuti Salim representing Twagirayezu Alice and her siblings, argues that the Intermediate Court of Gasabo analysed whether Twagirayezu Albert had the right to sell the disputed plot, or whether the disputed plot was the shared property. Before the appellate court, the same issues were still examined, but with an emphasis on the real origin of the disputed property; but the High Court has also added an issue

of determining whether the sale agreement that Twagirayezu 1 « When, upon considering a report on the judgment vitiated by the injustice that is submitted to him/her, the President of the Supreme Court decides that the case be re-adjudicated, he/she forwards the file to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court for him/her to set the date for retrial... » 2 « When the Supreme Court or any other court designated by the President of the Supreme Court receives an application for review of a judgment on grounds of being vitiated by injustice, it examines the merits of the case anew and in the presence of all parties » 3 Case RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2018 of Busoro Gervais v. Busoro

Page 6

Albert concluded with Niyongira Jean Claude should be nullified; and this very last issue had not been examined by the previous Court; the reason why in case the issues examined by both Courts are not the same, the underpinning grounds could not be the same, even though both Courts had taken the same decision. He prayed the seized Court to examine whether it is true that the Intermediate Court and the High Court had been seized for the same issues and they both similarly analysed them; in case it finds that it is not true, it shall hold that his clients did not lose the case for the same reasons, therefore, the second appeal should have been admitted since its subject matter amounts to 92,825,000 Frw. [15] For Counsel Kazeneza Théophile who also assists Twagirayezu Alice and her siblings, prays the Court to notice that the Intermediate Court and the High Court were not seized for the same issues, he also added that while before the High Court, Twagirayezu Albert failed to account for the origin of the property he registered under his names yet the burden to do so was on him. Therefore, it is his finding that the second appeal of this case should have been admitted since the rulings of both previous courts were based on different grounds. [16] Counsel Nsengiyumva Viateur representing Mrs. Umumaranyota Agnès submits that while before the Intermediate Court of Gasabo and before

the High Court as well, both courts had to first examine whether Twagirayezu Albert had the right to sell the disputed property and they also examined the origin of this property, he states that both courts found that Twagirayezu Albert has the evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the disputed plot belonged to him, the Courts have also examined whether the contested sale agreement was to be nullified, but both the Courts moved to stay the agreement as it was legally concluded; he, therefore, notices that the Court of Appeal did not err, since the claimants had lost the case in both previous Courts and for the same reasons. [17] Counsel Ngezahayo Bernard assisting Twagirayezu Albert submits that he concurs with Counsel Nsengiyumva Viateur, and he also argues that the second appeal should not have been admitted.

DETERMINATION OF THE COURT [18] Article 52, paragraph 3 of the Law no 30/2018 of 02/06/2018 relating to the Jurisdiction of Courts provides that « […] The appeal at second instance cannot be admissible for cases in which parties have admitted charges brought against them or a party who has lost his/her case in both courts for the same reasons. […] » [19] By defining the case ground, the Court set the position that the ground cannot be confused with the decision, rather they are underlying grounds on which each Court relied in taking the decision in consideration of the facts and the legal provisions, the grounds are based on for justifying and explaining to the parties the motivation for the decision taken by the Court, also the parties rely on the grounds to assess whether their pleading was examined by the Court as each court decision should be grounded.4 4 See case RCOM AA0051/14/CS of 04/12/2015 between Rwanda Revenue Authority v. SECAM Ltd, paragraph 2. See case RCOMAA 0038/16/SC-RCOMAA 0033/2016/SC of 21/04/2017 between Bank of Kigali Ltd v. Mulisa Kana Martin, paragraph 21. See case RCOMAA 0048/16/CS of 19/05/2017 between Rwanda Revenue Authority v. SODAR Ltd, paragraph 17.

Page 7

[20] With regard to the same reasons, in the case of Road Solutions Pavement Products vs Mailco Ltd, the Court explained that while examining whether the grounds are the same “the emphasis is put on the subject matter and on the analysis made by each court in a bid to understand the motives that pushed the court to opt for a certain decision. In addition, particular attention is paid to ascertain whether it is the very issues that were brought before the first and the appellate court, and that both courts have handled them in a similar manner”5 [21] The case file indicates that the main issue that the Intermediate Court of Gasabo examined was to determine whether Twagirayezu Albert had the right to sell the disputed plot and a related ground that the Court has thereof given features under paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment RC 0038/TGI/GSBO. In the High Court, the above issue changed and became the determination of the origin of the disputed property with a bid of figuring out the rightful owner of the disputed property. However, as is evidenced by the contents of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment RCA 00291/2018/HC/KIG, the High Court entirely plagiarised the content of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appealed judgment. [22] It is in the finding of the instant Court that the purpose of substantiating the court decides to provide litigants with reasons that backed and lead to a

decision it took, when such decision’s supporting reasons cannot be considered as set by the court because the court has entirely copied from another source without acknowledging any reference thereof, be it the content of the appealed judgment, or the litigants ‘submissions, the legal scholars state that they cannot be considered as grounds, rather it is judicial plagiarism6, and they argue that such plagiarism cannot be taken for the grounds of the court's decision. The above concern has even featured in some courts of other countries, as it once occurred in the case of Di Leo vs Ernest and Young, where the Court of Appeal condemned the inappropriate practice of judicial plagiarism among District courts, the Court of Appeal warned that such a practice undermines and tarnishes the court’s decision, as it makes the court’s decision to seem like a manipulation of the litigants’ positions. The court’s decision that is so drawn remains so tarnished even when it was only partially plagiarised7. [23] In the case of Cojocaru vs British Columbia Women’s Hospital & Health Centre, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in Canada found that the previous court had plagiarised ( entirely copied) 84 pages out of 105 pages from the entire appealed judgment, the court had just copied the litigants' submissions; while on 222 paragraphs of the whole judgment, only 30 paragraphs were

the original version of the court about the preface, the summary of the judgment and the submissions of the litigants, therefore the Court of Appeal upheld that the grounds provided by the previous court should not be considered as for its analysis of the issue filed to it or they lead it to the decision it 5 See case RS/INJUST/RCOM 00002/2020/SC of 25/09/2020 between Road Solutions Pavement Products v. MAILCO Ltd, paragraph 24. You can as well see case RCOMAA 0048/16/CS of 19/05/2017 between Rwanda Revenue Authority v. SODAR, paragraph 18. 6 If an opinion or order cannot fairly be attributed to the court, describing the process of its production and adoption as judicial plagiarism is perfectly apt.” See Douglas R. Richmond, “UNORIGINAL SIN: The Problem of Judicial Plagiarism” (2014) Arizona State Law Journal 177 at 179. 7 A district judge could not photocopy a lawyer's brief and issue it as an opinion. Briefs are argumentative, partisan submissions. Judges should evaluate briefs and produce a neutral conclusion, not repeat an advocate's oratory. From time to time district judges extract portions of briefs and use them as the basis of opinions. We have disapproved of this practice because it disguises the judge's reasons and portrays the court as an advocate's tool, even when the judge adds some words of his own." Reba DiLeo v. Ernst & Young 901 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1990).

Page 8

made. This made the Supreme Court of Canada rule that if any judicial plagiarism is so evident that any reasonable person would easily notice that the seized court has never analysed the issues and elements of evidence brought to it and did not take the decision in its discretion, such judgment may be annulled8. [24] However, the Court finds that in the United States of America, for the case of Stone vs Kiowa City, the Supreme Court of Kansas held that though judicial plagiarism is still an intolerable practice, it may not lead to the judgment nullification, it may instead call for the judgment review, and thus for correction9. And this is exactly what the Supreme Court of Wisconsin opted for while adjudicating the case of McDermott vs the State10. For justification of their positions, these courts explained that though the court which plagiarized defies the common judicial practice by entirely copying other persons' content without acknowledgment, there is no judicial procedural law that is being violated to an extent that the concerned judgment is quashed. This very court too concurs with the above position and agrees that the entire plagiarism of whether the litigants‘ submissions or the content of another judgment is still unbearable, the court still deems that such an irregularity might not necessarily lead to the fact that the judgment is quashed, but instead and for the

purpose of correction, the court that has detected it might re-adjudicate the case and have the error rectified. [25] The Court finds that total judicial plagiarism can neither be taken for reference-based motivation, whereby the appellate court can acknowledge and appropriate itself the motivations authored by the previous court. Judicial plagiarism differs from « reference-based motivation » due to the fact that the latter is pre-conditioned on the prior analysis of whether parties have filed their appeals with new arguments, and the appellate Court has to as well acknowledge that with regard to the appeal, it concurs with the previous court’s decision, if at all it intends to thereof take a similar stance11. With regard to this case at hand, it is evident that at the appeal level, the issue to do with the origin of the disputed property was totally new. More so, the High Court has never acknowledged that it concurs with the judgment by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo so that it can be considered as it referred to it, rather the High Court did not expound on the first issue. 8 A judgment should be set aside “only if the [judge’s] copying is of such a character that a reasonable person apprised of the circumstances would conclude that the judge did not put her mind to the evidence and the issues and did not render an impartial, independent decision.” See Cojocaru v. B.C.

Women’s Hosp. & Health Ctr., No. 34304, 2013 SCC 30 (Can. May 24, 2013). 9 “There is nothing inherently wrong with a trial court's adopting a party’s findings and conclusions in their entirety as long as they had been individually considered, but it is the sort of shorthand that would be susceptible to abuse. Thus, although not a practice to be encouraged, it is not, standing alone, a violation of Supreme Court Rule 165 [ “In a contested matter submitted to the court without a jury -and when the court grants a motion for summary judgment -the court must state its findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with K.S.A. 60- 252.” Rule 165 - Reasons for Decision, Kan. R. Rel. Dist. Ct. 165] or K.S.A. 60-252 [ (1) In general. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury or upon entering summary judgment, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court. Judgment must be entered under K.S.A. 60- 258, and amendments thereto]." See the case of Stone vs the City of Kiowa, 950 P.2d 1305 (Kan. 1997). 10 State v. McDermott, 810 N.W.2d 237 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012) para 25. 11 En appel, la motivation par référence est admise en cas de confirmation du jugement La

Cour est réputée avoir adopté les motifs du jugement qu’elle confirme, et qui ne sont pas contraires aux sien La Cour d’Appel n’a pas à expliquer sa décision par d’autres motifs que ceux des premiers juges lorsque les parties ne présentent pas de moyens nouveaux. Dans le cas contraire, le juge doit les analyser.” Confer Serge Guinchard (sous la dir.) Droit et pratique de la procédure civile, Dalloz, Paris, 2014, p.1191.

Page 9

[26] The Court finds that the fact the appellate court entirely plagiarised or modified the explanations provided on the appealed judgment or it did not indicate that it concurred with it, cannot, therefore, be considered to have substantiated its ruling. When such is the case, even if the is no violated law, the principles of drafting are not respected, and the Court that examines the second appeal was not requested to rule about the objection related to the fact that the party lost the case for the same reasons, it has no reference to compare the reasoning of both previous courts to decide that they ruled on basis of the same grounds while the grounds were provided by the court that heard the case at the first instance. [27] The Court finds that since it is evident that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the High Court’s judgment do not provide grounds, and it copied the entire content of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment by the Intermediate Court of Gasabo without any modification whatsoever, this indicates that the High Court has not substantiated the ruling it held under the aforementioned paragraphs; therefore, the Court of Appeal could not move that both previous courts backed their rulings with the same grounds yet the only existing grounds were those that emanated from the ruling of the case on the first instance, therefore, the second appeal should have been admitted. [28] With

all the foregoing elucidations, the instant Court finds that Twagirayezu Alice together with Twagirayezu Alphonsine, Twagirayezu Monique, and Twagirayezu Albertine have not lost the case before the High Court and the Intermediate Court for the same reasons; therefore, their second appeal should have been admitted. III. DECISION OF THE COURT [29] Holds that Twagirayezu Albertine, together with Twagirayezu Alice, Twagirayezu Alphonsine, and Twagirayezu Monique have not lost the case before the High Court and the Intermediate Court for the same reasons; [30] Holds that the second appeal against the judgment RCAA 00020/2019/CA lodged by Twagirayezu Albertine together with Twagirayezu Alice, Twagirayezu Alphonsine, and Twagirayezu Monique should have been admitted by the Court of Appeal and the case re- adjudicated on the merits; [31] Decides that the hearing on the merits will be resumed on 08/09/2021.