Rwanda Case Law

MURENZI v MUTABAZI ET AL.

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that the expert report's procedural defects were cured when the experts took oath before the High Court, and that the evidence established Murenzi's construction activities—specifically overloading the wall—caused the collapse. The applicant's failure to appeal on damages barred reconsideration of that issue. Liability for damages, expert fees, and costs was affirmed against Murenzi and Uwamahoro.

Source excerpt

• Expert evidence
• Damages
• Liability for construction defects
• Insurance subrogation
• Procedural fairness
• Review for injustice

Read case analysis

MURENZI v MUTABAZI N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that the expert report, though initially lacking oaths, was regularized when the experts testified under oath in the High Court; Murenzi's improper backfilling and construction caused the wall's collapse; damages were properly assessed; Murenzi and Uwamahoro are liable to Mutabazi, Muhawenimana, and SANLAM; expert fees and costs are to be borne by Murenzi as the losing party.

Source excerpt

• Expert evidence
• Burden of proof
• Causation
• Damages
• Building code compliance
• Insurance subrogation

Read case analysis

SORAS Ltd v. ITEX Sarl

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0148/11/CS

The Supreme Court found that sufficient evidence, including invoices, waybills, and police reports, established the existence of a transport contract between ITEX Sarl and TACT Ltd for the tea belonging to OCIR-THE. As SORAS Ltd, as insurer, compensated TACT Ltd for the damaged tea, it was subrogated to claim the same amount from ITEX Sarl. ITEX Sarl was liable for the loss as transporter, and SORAS Ltd was entitled to interest at the National Bank rate, as well as procedural and advocate fees.

Source excerpt

• Transport contract evidence
• Transporter liability
• Insurance subrogation
• Interest on damages
• Procedural and advocate fees

Read case analysis

SORAS Ltd v. ITEX s.a.r.l

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0148/11/CS

The Supreme Court found that sufficient documentary evidence established a transport contract between ITEX s.a.r.l and TACT Ltd for the tea of OCIR-THE, that SORAS Ltd as insurer was entitled to subrogate TACT Ltd and claim damages from ITEX s.a.r.l, and that SORAS Ltd was entitled to interest at 7% from the date of notice, as well as procedural and advocate fees.

Source excerpt

• Transport contract
• Liability of transporters
• Insurance subrogation
• Damages
• Interest on principal
• Evidence in transport contracts

Read case analysis

SORAS Ltd v. ITEX s.a.r.l

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0148/11/CS

The Supreme Court held that documentary evidence proved a carriage contract, and that SORAS, having indemnified the loss, could recover from ITEX by subrogation.

• Carriage of goods
• Insurance subrogation
• Contractual damages
• Interest on damages
• Carriage-of-goods
• Insurance-subrogation

Read case analysis