UBUSHINJACYAHA vs RENZAHO Et.Al.

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs RENZAHO Et.Al.

The Court of Appeal held that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the High Court based its decision on a 'non-existent law' as required by Article 52(2)(3°) of Law No. 30/2018. The procedural errors alleged (deciding beyond the scope of the appeal) do not amount to application of a non-existent law but are...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RPAA 00322-00323/2022/CA
Parties
Applicant: Ubushinjacyaha; Applicant: FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd; Respondent: Renzaho Alexis; Respondent: Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
26 April 2023
Case Number
RPAA 00322-00323/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Second appeal dismissed as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Interpretation of 'non Existent Law' in Appeals, Limits of Appellate Review, Procedural Errors Vs. Substantive Grounds for Appeal
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Interpretation of 'non Existent Law' in Appeals Limits of Appellate Review Procedural Errors Vs. Substantive Grounds for Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Applicant

FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd

Applicant

Renzaho Alexis

Respondent

Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal)

  1. 1 Whether the second appeal by the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd is admissible under Article 52 of Law No. 30/2018
  2. 2 Whether the High Court based its decision on a 'non-existent law' or merely committed a procedural error

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the High Court based its decision on a 'non-existent law' as required by Article 52(2)(3°) of Law No. 30/2018. The procedural errors alleged (deciding beyond the scope of the appeal) do not amount to application of a non-existent law but are correctable by other legal means. Furthermore, the sentence imposed did not meet the 15-year threshold for a second appeal under Article 52(2)(9°). Therefore, the second appeal was inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Second appeal dismissed as inadmissible.

Orders

  • Objection by Renzaho Alexis and Paragone Mining Industry Investment Co Ltd upheld.
  • Second appeal by Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd not admitted.