Rwanda Case Law

KANOBANA v DUKUZE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCAA 0029/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal found that Kanobana Eddy and Dukuze Betty cohabited as husband and wife in a stable and continuous manner from 1995 to 2020, and that the disputed properties were acquired during this period. Under Article 39 of Law N˚59/2008, both parties are entitled to equal rights in property acquired during cohabitation, regardless of formal marriage or proof of individual contributions. The properties must remain jointly registered, and Dukuze Betty must compensate Kanobana Eddy for legal costs incurred at the appellate level.

Source excerpt

• Cohabitation
• Division of property
• Gender-based violence
• Burden of proof
• Compensation for legal costs

Read case analysis

NZIRORERA v UWAMAHORO

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA00023/2022/HC/RWG

Cohabitation and joint efforts, whether monetary or non-monetary, entitle both parties to equal division of property acquired during the relationship, regardless of formal marriage or individual financial contribution. Compensation is awarded for proven harm and litigation costs.

Source excerpt

• Division of property
• Cohabitation
• Gender-based violence
• Compensation

Read case analysis

ZIHINJISHI v. SIBOMANA

Court

Intermediate Court

Case number

RC 00026/2019/TGI/NYGE

The court held that unmarried cohabitants had equal rights to property acquired during their union and ordered the assets to be divided equally.

• Cohabitation
• Division of property
• Parental responsibility
• Gender-based violence
• Division-of-property
• Parental-responsibility

Read case analysis

MUTONI_v_NIWENSHUTI_ET.AL_462162_en

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCAA0014/15/CS

Mutoni K. Jackline cohabited with Niwenshuti Aloys as his wife, and under Rwandan law and comparative jurisprudence, property acquired during such cohabitation must be shared equally among cohabitants, regardless of specific financial contribution. She is entitled to 1/3 of the house's value. Damages for the end of cohabitation are not awarded as the relationship was not legally formalized and inherently precarious.

Source excerpt

• Cohabitation
• Property division
• Evidence in family disputes
• Illegitimate marriage
• Gender-based violence

Read case analysis

NGANGARE v. MUKANKURANGA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCAA 0022/13/CS

The Supreme Court held that mere disagreements do not constitute cessation of cohabitation if the parties continue to live together and jointly manage the household. Therefore, Law No. 59/2008 and Article 39 applied to the division of property. The Court also found that Mukankuranga was entitled to additional compensation for litigation costs due to Ngangare's continued appeals.

Source excerpt

• Cohabitation
• Division of property
• Unmarried couples
• Gender-based violence
• Compensation for litigation costs

Read case analysis

RE GATERA ET AL.

RE GATERA ET AL. (PETITION FOR REPEALING UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/PÉN.0003/10/CS

Article 39 of Law No 59/2008 is not contrary to article 26 of the Constitution because it does not recognize unlawful marriages or grant marital rights, but ensures equitable sharing of property co-acquired or co-owned by persons who lived together as wife and husband. The law avoids injustice by preventing one party from appropriating property accumulated jointly, regardless of marital status.

Source excerpt

• Constitutionality of statutory provisions
• Property rights of cohabiting partners
• Marriage recognition
• Gender-based violence

Read case analysis