Rwanda Case Law

NSENGIYUMVA v. BANK OF KIGALI (BK) PLC

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that bank loan interests continue to accrue until the entire debt is repaid, but such accrual is limited by the in duplum rule, meaning interest cannot exceed the outstanding principal. The Court found that the applicant's claim for damages from the auction could not be set off against the loan as it was not part of the original subject matter. The Court adopted the expert's calculation of the outstanding principal and interest, ordering repayment accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Bank loan interest accrual
• In duplum rule
• Judgment review
• Loan agreement termination
• Mortgage auction
• Set-off

Read case analysis

NSENGIYUMVA v. BANK OF KIGALI (BK) PLC

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2021/SC

Bank loan interests continue to accrue after loan agreement termination and mortgage auction, provided the total interest does not exceed the outstanding principal (in duplum rule). New claims not raised in the original trial cannot be examined in judgment review. The applicant is liable for the outstanding principal and accrued interest, both capped at the principal amount determined by the expert. Damages for counsel and procedural fees are not awarded as both parties partially succeeded.

Source excerpt

• Bank loan interest accrual
• In duplum rule
• Loan agreement termination
• Judgment review
• Mortgage auction
• Set-off

Read case analysis

CREATIVE VARIATIONS Ltd vs CROWN PAINTS RWANDA Ltd

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00038/2020/CA

The court held that the amount owed by Creative Variations Ltd is determined by the written acknowledgment of debt, not by the cheques de garantie, which are merely payment instruments. Creative Variations Ltd failed to provide sufficient evidence for any set-off or counterclaim. The court adjusted the amount owed to reflect payments made after the lower court's judgment and awarded reasonable costs and attorney fees to the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Debt recovery
• Evidence
• Set-off
• Cheques as payment instruments
• Costs and attorney fees

Read case analysis

RLR-V.2-2015

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court partly allowed both appeals in a contract dispute over sacks for tea packaging, upholding late penalties but rejecting set-off against a different company.

• Burden of proof
• Force majeure
• Breach of contract
• Damages
• Late payment interest
• Compensation

Read case analysis

NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RADA 0025/12/CS

SINFOTEC Sarl failed to prove force majeure for the 12-day delay; thus, OCIR-THE was justified in deducting the corresponding late fee. However, OCIR-THE was not entitled to set-off 11,543,000Frw owed to SINFOTEC Sarl against a debt of another company (EIS). SINFOTEC Sarl is entitled to late fees on this amount at 0.1% per day for 1,753 days, plus reasonable counsel and procedural fees. Damages based on article 258 of the Civil Code (tort) are not applicable to contractual performance issues. The High Court erred by not specifying the amounts awarded for counsel and procedural fees before ord…

Source excerpt

• Burden of proof
• Force majeure
• Breach of contract
• Late fees
• Damages
• Set-off

Read case analysis

NAEB v. SINFOTEC Sarl

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RADA 0025/12/CS

SINFOTEC Sarl failed to prove force majeure for the 12-day delay; thus, OCIR-THE was entitled to deduct penalties for that period. However, OCIR-THE was not entitled to set-off amounts owed by a different company (E.I.S.) against SINFOTEC Sarl. SINFOTEC Sarl is entitled to damages for late payment on the wrongfully withheld amount, calculated at 0.1% per day for 1,753 days, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. Claims for additional damages based on tort or for bank charges were rejected as not contractually or legally justified.

Source excerpt

• Burden of proof
• Force majeure
• Contractual damages
• Compensation
• Interest on late payment
• Set-off

Read case analysis

11Fina bank v. Ntaganda 1

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0045/09/CS

The Supreme Court partly allowed cross-appeals in a bank loan dispute, reducing excessive damages, offsetting payments against the debt, and ordering a lower net balance.

• Loan agreements
• Banking practice
• Damages
• Interest rates
• Contractual performance
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis