UWAMAHORO v. CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA

# UWAMAHORO v. CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA

- Source: Amategeko - Section: Decisions (Judgements) - Date: 2014-09-24 - Case/document no.: RCOMA 0351/14/HCC - Collection: Commercial High Court

## Text

## Page 1

UWAMAHORO v. CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA [Rwanda COMMERCIAL HIGH COURT – RCOMA 0351/14/HCC (Kibuka, P.J.,) 26 September 2014] Commercial Procedure – The principle that civil action stops being heard when criminal is not yet ruled – The judge of civil or commercial case must not immediately stop the hearing of the case on the ground that there is another criminal case, except if the criminal action is for the aggrieved party which claimed for damages in the criminal case in order to get paid for his damages – Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 139. Law relating to jurisdiction of courts – The territorial jurisdiction – The cases relating to the companies and other nongovernmental organisations – Those cases are heard in the Courts situated where their headquarters are situated or where the subject matter of the suit is located – Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 123. Facts: Uwamahoro sued CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA before Musanze Commercial Court for not having respected the supply contract she made with its school called College Polytechnique Urumuri. The court declared Uwamahoro’s claim invalid on all grounds since the one who signed on that contract as the Headmaster of the school had no competence. Uwamahoro appealed before the Commercial High Court stating that the court of first instance ignored the evidence proving that KAYISIRE Valens was the Headmaster of College Polytechnique Urumuri and that he was in the Procurement Committee. In defense of CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA, it raised an objection of not admitting Uwamahoro’s claim since there is another claim she lodged in the prosecution similar to the one she filed in the commercial courts and that the first instance court had not the territorial jurisdiction. Uwamahoro on her side stated that the claim she filed before the commercial courts is different to that she filed in the prosecution more importantly that now she sues for the contract. While on the objection of the lack of territorial jurisdiction, she stated that it was analysed at the first instance and the opposing party did not appeal for. Held: 1. The judge in the commercial case must not immediately stop the hearing on the ground that there is another criminal case, except if the criminal action is for the aggrieved party which claimed for damages in the criminal case in order to get paid for his damages. 2. The cases relating to the companies and other nongovernmental organizations are heard in the Courts situated where their headquarters are situated or where the subject matter of the suit is located. Objection of incompetence is valid. Appealed judgment is quashed.

## Page 2

Statues or statutory instruments referred to: Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts, article 123. Law nº 30/2013 of 24/05/2013 relating to criminal procedure, article 139. Authors Cited Me HADDAD Sabine, article juridique, Legavox.fr, Le criminel ne tient plus le civil en état, ou la fin d’un adage, see on http://www.legavox.fr/blog/maitre-haddad-sabine/criminel-tient-plus- civil-etat. Judgment I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE [1] Uwamahoro Fabiola sued CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA before Musanze Commercial Court, for not having honored the supply contract of food she has made with its school called Collège Polytechnique Urumuri. [2] That court heard that case and declared UWAMAHORO Fabiola’s claim to be invalid on all grounds, since the one who signed on that contract as the Headmaster of the school was not competent for it. [3] Uwamahoro Fabiola was not satisfied with the decision and appealed before the Court on the grounds that the court ignored the evidences proving that KAYISIRE Valens was the Headmaster of College Polytechnique Urumuri and ignored that other contracts were signed by this Headmaster, and the money was paid, and it ignored the evidence proving that he is KAYISIRE Valens who was in the Procurement Committee. II. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL ISSUES [4] In its defense, CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA raised two objections of not admitting Uwamahoro Fabiola’s claim, the first one is that she filed a similar claim in the prosecution; the second is that the court which rendered the appealed case had no territorial jurisdiction. A) With regards to the objection of that there is the criminal case related to this. [5] CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA in explaining its first objection, it requests this court not admit the appeal claim since Uwamahoro Fabiola, as long as she knew that Kayisire Valens with whom she made the contract at issue, was not the Headmaster of the school to which she had to supply, she quickly sued him before the police, the file was prepared and sent to the prosecution, it is waiting to be decided by the court. CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA realises that Uwamahoro Fabiola may not seize two courts on the same issue, thus she has to wait the criminal case, basing on the provisions of the article 139 of the law relating to criminal procedure and the legal principle that “the civil case waits for the penal case to be decided”.

## Page 3

[6] Uwamahoro Fabiola argues against this objection stating that it is not valid since the issue of the suit has no relationship with the criminal case mentioned by CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA with the one she lodged against Kayisire Valens, while the subject matter of the case is the contract that Uwamahoro Fabiola made with Collège Polytechnique Urumuri, the school which is managed by CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA, and KAYISIRE Valens himself admit that he was its headmaster. [7] The court realizes the article 139 of the Law Nº 30/2013 of 24/5/2013 relating to the code of criminal procedure provides for that «a person aggrieved by an offence who wishes to sue for damages may either file an action in a criminal court or a civil court, however, once the aggrieved person chooses to file his/her action in one court, either criminal or civil, he/she cannot later file the same action in another court ». It realizes that it cannot decide that the claim that Uwamahoro Fabiola filed in the prosecution is the same as the one she lodged before the commercial courts, since CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA does not reveal to it subject matter of the criminal case; Uwamahoro Fabiola on her side said that in one case she sued Nkurunziza Valens and in commercial court she sued CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA for non-respect of the contract; it realizes that this objection may not be considered as valid. [8] The court decides it by basing on the opinion of a lawyer Sabine HADDAD, who admits in general that the judge of civil and commercial case has not to immediately stop the hearing of the case on the ground that there is another criminal case, except if the criminal action is for the aggrieved person who claimed for damages in the criminal case in order to get paid for his/her damages, «(…) le juge civil ou commercial a le pouvoir d'apprécier le caractère sérieux de la procédure pénale engagée et n'a plus l'obligation de prononcer automatiquement un sursis à statuer, sauf dans le cas d'une action civile introduite séparément de l'action publique, ayant uniquement pour objet la réparation du dommage causé par l'infraction. Le principe du pénal qui tient le civil en l'état n'est plus automatique, il ne demeure donc que pour l'action en réparation causé par l'infraction… »1 B) On the objection of the lack of jurisdiction of the court which rendered the appealed judgment. [9] CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA explaining its second objection, argues that the court which rendered the decision on the judgment appealed against, had no territorial jurisdiction since it has its headquarter is in Rulindo, and it is where it performs its activities, therefore Uwamahoro Fabiola would not have sued it before the court which rendered that judgment, thus that judgment has to be dismissed, and being appealed against is void. [10] Uwamahoro Fabiolain her argument against this objection, says that it was analyzed at the first instance and they did not appeal against it, that its headquarter was not at Musanze instead of Rulindo, but they revealed no evidence for it, except wordy arguments. [11] The court basing on the provisions of the article 121 of Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as amended and completed up to date, provides for that “unless the law provides otherwise, the Court situated where the defendant ordinarily resides shall have jurisdiction to try a case. When there are 1Me HADDAD Sabine, Le criminel ne tient plus le civil en état, ou la fin d’un adage, article juridique, Legavox.fr, http://www.legavox.fr/blog/maitre-haddad-sabine/criminel-tient-plus-civil-etat).

## Page 4

several defendants, the plaintiff shall choose the Court of one of the defendants’ ordinary domicile. When the domicile of the defendant is unknown, the case shall be heard in the Court situated where he/she resides”. Basing on the fact that Uwamahoro Fabiola too, except only wordy arguments that the opposing party is located in Musanze District, and she reveal no evidence for it; [12] The court realizes, the fact that among the parties none hesitate on that Collège Polytechnique Urumuri is the school of CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA, the fact that it is evident in all documents drafted by CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA, even before the beginning of this case (see the letter dismissing Ndungutse Emmanuel, KAYISIRE Valens of 25 and 26/01/2014) it is written that this CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA is located in Rulindo District; and the fact that the proof of the decision of the judgment RCOM 0166/14/TC/Nyge brought by Uwamahoro Fabiola herself demonstrates that the party Collège Polytechnique Urumuri is located in Rulindo District. It realizes also the contract that Uwamahoro Fabiola made with Collège Polytechnique Urumuri proves that it is located in Rulindo District. [13] The court realizes that as it is provided for by the article 123 of Organic Law N° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as amended and completed up to date, this article provides that “Cases concerning companies and other private organizations with legal personality shall be heard in Courts situated where their headquarters are situated or where the subject matter of the suit is located”. And the fact that Collège Polytechnique Urumuri is the establishment of CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA which is located in Rulindo District, thus it has to be sued before the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over Rulindo District, which is Nyarugenge Commercial Court, as provided in the annex of the Organic Law n° 51/2008 of 09/09/2008 determining the organization, functioning and jurisdiction of Courts as amended and completed up to date. III. THE DECISION OF THE COURT [14] The Commercial High Court: - Decides to admit the objection raised by CHURCH MISSION SOS IN RWANDA on the lack of jurisdiction of the court which rendered the decision on the judgment appealed against, since it was lodged legally, since it analyzed it, it realized it to be valid. - Decides that the decision of the judgment appealed against RCOM 0143/14/TC/MUS which was decided by Musanze Commercial Court, on 30/05/2014, it is nullified since it was decided by the court which has no territorial jurisdiction. - Decides that the decision of the judgment RCOM 0143/14/TC/MUS rendered by Musanze Commercial Court on 30 May 2014 is quashed. - Decides that no other grounds which may be analyzed due to the fact that the appealed judgment is no longer valid.