UWIMANA vs. NGIRUWONSANGA N’ABANDI

UWIMANA vs. NGIRUWONSANGA N’ABANDI

The court found that the land in dispute was sold by the applicant's late husband in accordance with the law and custom prevailing at the time, with no credible evidence of unlawful dispossession or lack of spousal representation. The applicant failed to prove her claims, and the prior judgments awarding the land to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2022/CA
Parties
Applicant: Uwimana Marie Antoinette; Respondent: Ngiruwonsanga Jean Marie Vianney; Respondent: Habiyaremye Dominique; Respondent: Mukadisi Joselyne; Respondent: Mushumba Anastase; Respondent: Mpongerabanzi François; Respondent: Nkurunziza Jean Baptiste; Respondent: Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
29 November 2023
Case Number
RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2022/CA
Procedural Posture
Civil (family/property) / Appeal for Review on Grounds of Injustice
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Land Ownership, Sale of Property, Spousal Consent, Burden of Proof, Costs and Damages
Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Land Ownership Sale of Property Spousal Consent Burden of Proof +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uwimana Marie Antoinette

Applicant

Ngiruwonsanga Jean Marie Vianney

Respondent

Habiyaremye Dominique

Respondent

Mukadisi Joselyne

Respondent

Mushumba Anastase

Respondent

Mpongerabanzi François

Respondent

Nkurunziza Jean Baptiste

Respondent

Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (family/property) / Appeal for Review on Grounds of Injustice

  1. 1 Whether the disputed land was lawfully sold by the deceased spouse without the applicant's consent
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to restitution of land and removal of structures
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be relieved from paying costs and damages awarded in previous judgments

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the land in dispute was sold by the applicant's late husband in accordance with the law and custom prevailing at the time, with no credible evidence of unlawful dispossession or lack of spousal representation. The applicant failed to prove her claims, and the prior judgments awarding the land to the respondents and imposing costs and damages on the applicant remain valid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review on grounds of injustice is dismissed as unfounded.
  • The prior High Court judgment (RADA 00103/2019/HC/KIG) remains in force in all respects.