UJENGE RWANDA LTD N’ABANDI v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’ABANDI

UJENGE RWANDA LTD N’ABANDI v. ECOBANK RWANDA PLC N’ABANDI

There is no contradiction between the judgments because the parties and subject matter are not identical, and the judgments can be executed concurrently. The applicants' claim lacks merit, and they are liable for costs to the respondents for unnecessary litigation.

Citation
RCOM 00001/2024/SC
Parties
Applicant: UJENGE RWANDA LTD; Applicant: Sebatigita Patrick; Applicant: Manirakiza Katia; Respondent: ECOBANK RWANDA PLC; Respondent: SHELTER AFRIQUE; Interested Party: Rutanga Jeanne na bagenzi be (20); Intervener (rejected): PALM ESTATE OWNERS Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
23 January 2026
Case Number
RCOM 00001/2024/SC
Procedural Posture
Commercial/civil (supreme Court) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed for lack of merit.
Legal Topics
Contradictory Judgments, Mortgage Law, Execution of Judgments, Banking Law, Real Estate Transactions
Source Language
rw
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contradictory Judgments Mortgage Law Execution of Judgments Banking Law Real Estate Transactions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UJENGE RWANDA LTD

Applicant

Sebatigita Patrick

Applicant

Manirakiza Katia

Applicant

ECOBANK RWANDA PLC

Respondent

SHELTER AFRIQUE

Respondent

Rutanga Jeanne na bagenzi be (20)

Interested Party

PALM ESTATE OWNERS Ltd

Intervener (rejected)

Procedural Posture

Commercial/civil (supreme Court) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a contradiction between judgments of the Commercial Courts and the Court of Appeal regarding entitlement to houses in Palm Estate project.
  2. 2 Whether the judgments can be executed concurrently or are mutually exclusive.
  3. 3 Entitlement to damages for parties alleging harm from contradictory judgments.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no contradiction between the judgments because the parties and subject matter are not identical, and the judgments can be executed concurrently. The applicants' claim lacks merit, and they are liable for costs to the respondents for unnecessary litigation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for lack of merit.

Orders

  • Applicants (UJENGE RWANDA Ltd, Sebatigita Patrick, Manirakiza Katia) to pay ECOBANK RWANDA Plc and SHELTER AFRIQUE 1,500,000 Frw each (total 3,000,000 Frw) as costs, including attorney fees and litigation expenses.
  • No damages awarded to applicants or interested parties.