The Court of Appeal held that Uzamukunda Jeanne proved lawful ownership of the disputed plot, while the respondents failed to show a valid transfer from her.
The court held that the respondent acquired ownership of the property through a valid sale, fully paid and confirmed by the sellers, prior to SKOL's attachment. Delay in mutation (registration) due to being abroad did not extinguish her rights. The absence of a 'date certaine' did not invalidate the sale, as evidence and consistent testimony established genuine transfer. SKOL's attachment was therefore baseless, and the respondent is entitled to registration and partial legal costs.
The Supreme Court held that respondents could not unilaterally remove mortgaged property without the creditor’s written consent, but declined to order payment of an unspecified residual debt.