LLB DISSERTATION

i
UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
SCHOOL OF LAW
LLBIV
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2015-2016
RESEARCH PROJECT
Research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the Academic requirements for the award
of Bachelor Degree of Laws (LLB) at University of Rwanda, School of Law, Nyarugenge
Campus.
Presented by:
NTIRUSHWAMABOKO Aloys
Supervisor: Me UWINEZA Odette (LLM)
Kigali, May, 2016
TOPIC: EVIDENCE IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS
UNDER RWANDAN LAW: CASE LAW ANALYSIS

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ v
APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................vii
EVIDENCE IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS UNDER RWANDAN LAW: CASE LAW
ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAP. 0: PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT ................................................... 1
0. I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1
0. II PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 4
0. III RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................ 7
0. IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................. 8
0. V RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 8
0.VI SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH................................................................................ 8
0.VII ORGANISATION OF THE RESEARCH............................................................................ 9
CHAP.I HISTORICAL PROTECTION OF OWNERSHIP LAND RIGHTS IN RWANDA:
LEGAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 10
Section I: General understanding of Ownership rights ............................................................. 10
I.1 Notion of ownership rights .................................................................................................. 10
I.2 Characteristics and prerogatives of ownership rights .......................................................... 12
I.2.1 Rights to Use (Usus)......................................................................................................... 13
I.2.2 Rights to enjoy the fruits from a property (Fructus)......................................................... 13
I.2.3 Rights to alienate/ dispose of the property (Abusus)........................................................ 14
I.3 The ownership rights of land in Rwanda ............................................................................. 14
I.3.1 Land Ownership System in Pre-Colonial period........................................................... 14
I.3.2 Land Ownership System during the Colonial period.................................................... 15
I.3.3 Land Ownership System during Post colonial period................................................... 15
I.4 The notion of private ownership over the land .................................................................... 17
I.4.1 Legal framework of private ownership over the land ................................................... 17
I.4.2 Limitation of private ownership........................................................................................ 18

ii
I.4.2.1 Prescription (article 45 of 2013 land law).................................................................. 19
I.4.2.2 Expropriation for public interest ................................................................................ 20
I.4.2.3 Environmental regulations ......................................................................................... 21
I.5 The notion of public ownership over the land and its Legal framework in Rwanda........... 22
I.5.1 Authentication of public ownership over land .............................................................. 23
I.5.2 Limitations of public ownership over the land.............................................................. 23
SECTION II: EVIDENCE IN LAND RELATED LITIGATION ............................................... 24
II.1 Arusha Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the
Rwandese Patriotic Front .......................................................................................................... 24
II.2The law of procedure (Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure) ........... 26
II.3 The law of Evidence........................................................................................................... 26
II.4 Land law ............................................................................................................................. 27
CHAP. II: EVIDENCES IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS: CASE LAW ANALYSIS....... 28
Section I: Evidence in Proprietary land rights under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963........ 28
I.1 Modes of acquisition of land under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963 .............................. 29
I.2 Limitations of rights over land under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963 ........................... 29
I.3 Authentication of land under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963 ........................................ 30
I.4 Analysed case laws .............................................................................................................. 30
I.4.1 Case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe................... 31
1.4.1.1 Presentation of facts and applicable law.................................................................... 31
1.4.1.2 Application of law to facts and decision of the court................................................ 31
I.4.1.3 Analysis of the case.................................................................................................... 33
I.4.2 Case no
RCA 0073/13/TGI/MHG, MUKAMUSONI Assia Vs MUSONERA Venuste,
HAGABIYAREMYE Innocent, et. al....................................................................................... 33
1.4.2.1 Presentation of facts and applicable law.................................................................... 33
1.4.2.2 Application of law to facts and decision of the court................................................ 34
1.4.2.3 Analysis of the case ................................................................................................... 35
SECTION II: EVIDENCE IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS UNDER THE 2005 LAND
LAW ............................................................................................................................................. 36
II.1 Land registration and Issuance Land titles ......................................................................... 36
II.1.1 Land titles ........................................................................................................................ 38
II.2.2 The 2008 procedure of land titling .................................................................................. 38

iii
II.2.3 Critics on the procedures of land registration in Rwanda ............................................... 40
II.3 Authentication under the 2013 land law............................................................................. 41
II.4 Analysed case law (case no RCA 0300/14/TGI/RBV) ...................................................... 41
II.4.1 Presentation of facts, question of law, applicable law and court decision................... 42
II.4.2. Analysis of the case .................................................................................................... 43
SECTION III: THE SUPREME COURT CASE LAW OF 2014 ................................................ 44
III.1 The analysis of the Supreme Court case (Case Law no RCAA 0018/13/CS)................... 44
III.1.1 Presentation of the case .............................................................................................. 44
III.1.2. Summary of facts, Question of Law and Application of law .................................... 45
III.2 Decision of the court ......................................................................................................... 46
III.3 Position of the court .......................................................................................................... 46
III.4 Innovations from the decided case law by Supreme Court............................................... 46
III.5 Declaration of Nullity of Land Certificate ........................................................................ 48
GENERAL CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 51
RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 52
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................... 54

iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to:
Myfamily(MyParents,BrothersandSisters),
MyEnlightenedSupervisor,MeOdetteUWINEZA
TheSchoolofLaw
TheLegalAidForum(LAF)
Allfriendsandclassmates.

v
DECLARATION
I, NTIRUSHWAMABOKO Aloys , hereby declare that this final report project entitled
“Evidence in Proprietary Land Rights under Rwandan Law: Case Law Analysis” is entirely my
own work and has not been submitted in whole or in part to any other University or Higher
Learning institution. To the best of my knowledge, the work presented hereafter is original. All
materials that I consulted while carrying out this work, all references were provided in footnotes
and bibliography. This final report project was conducted at the School of Law, College of Arts
and Social Sciences, in the University of Rwanda under the supervision of Me Odette
UWINEZA, the Lecturer at School of Law.
Kigali, On ………/…………/……..
Signature …………………….

vi
APPROVAL
I, undersigned, certify that this final report project entitled “Evidence in Proprietary Land Rights
under Rwandan Law: Case Law Analysis” has been carried out under my supervision and has
been submitted with my approval.
Done at Kigali, On ………/………/…………
Me Odette UWINEZA
Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Rwanda.

vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Upon the accomplishment of this final report project, I am pleasing the Almighty God for his
blessing and grace of daily life. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to all those who
contributed to its completion. In this view, I wish to recognise the role played by my parents,
brothers and sisters for the achievement of my work. The indispensable provision of financial
means and of all necessary support to live in complex academic life is really a great effort to my
future life.
I really thank to the authorities of University of Rwanda, College of Arts and Social Sciences,
specifically those of School of Law for having put in place the module for the purpose of
transforming the theoretical knowledge into research practices, and come up with a fully
researched and supervised work for the fulfillment of a bachelor degree.
Particularly, my sincere appreciation goes directly to the staff of the School of Law, beside their
personal duties, charges and responsibilities, for their determined efforts to complete my work in
safe conditions.
The same acknowledgment goes to my Supervisor Me Odette UWINEZA, the Lecturer of Laws
at the School of Law for her kind supervision, help in terms of provision of certain materials and
guidance as well as for undertaking the task to supervise my work. Without her excellent
supervision, full of legal and crucial analysis for the sake of its completion, my work would not
have been in the light of today.
Moreover, my recognition goes to my colleagues of the class. Their moral, collaborative
assistance and enthusiasm have been indispensable and beneficial towards the success of this
work.
Lastly, I thank all persons who contributed and helped me in one way or another, either direct or
indirect to achieve my light expectations at the University of Rwanda throughout the academic
period.
May God bless you all!

1
EVIDENCE IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS UNDER RWANDAN LAW: CASE
LAW ANALYSIS
CHAP. 0: PRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT
0. I. INTRODUCTION
Rwanda is a hilly and evergreen country located in East Africa with an area of 26.338 km.1
Its
population varies between 11.78 millions of people.2
Land issues are very delicate especially that
they touch on the fundamental essence of every society, especially in as far as the land
ownership which constitutes the major factor of production and the population‟s best way of
living. It therefore becomes clear to everyone that for Rwanda‟s sustainable development, the
priority is to put into account the land dimensions as it is the highly ranked resource in the
Rwanda‟s socio economic life.3
Land is the surface of the earth identified by specific boundaries, including the airspace above
that portion of surface, the minerals beneath it, and surrounding biodiversity, erections and
developments on that surface. In legal terms, it is an immovable and permanent asset inclusive of
rights associated with the surface of the earth from the centre to the infinite sky.4
Land is a fundamental resource of the nation state.5
Without land, without territory, there can be
no nation state. Housing, agriculture, natural resource use, and national security concerns are all
based upon land management and use.6
Hence, land is seen as one of the most important and
fundamental natural resource that is exploited by people to get their daily living means.
1
E. Rurangwa, Perspective of Land Reform in Rwanda, The Ministry of Lands, Human Settlement and
Environmental Protection, Kigali, 2002, p. 1.
2
Republic of Rwanda, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda,
Fourth Population and Housing Census, Rwanda, 2012 Thematic Report; Characteristics of households and
housing, January 2014, Kigali, p. 1.
3
D. M.Kayihura, F. Kigenza, Property and Land Law, Students Manual, University of Rwanda (Former NUR),
Butare, 2010, p. 42.
4
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 2.
5
S. Hodgson, C. Cullinan and K. Campbel, Land Ownership and Foreigners: A Comparative Analysis of
Regulatory Approaches to the Acquisition and Use of Land by Foreigner, FAO Legal Papers Online #6, 1999, p. 1.
6
Idem.

2
Through different periods of Rwandan history, Land issues have become the country‟s top
priority to the extent of being on the schedule of different national institutions at all times.7
For
instance, in 1996, a National Conference was held to discuss land issues in Rwanda and at the
end of it, the grounds were leveled for the draft Organic law on Land. After some years, the
government succeeded in having in place the law governing land use and management that was
The Organic Law No. 08 /2005 of 14/07/2005.8
Though the law was put in place, land related matters persisted. The massacres of 1959, 1973,
1990 and the Genocide perpetrated against Tutsi in April - July 1994 decimated over one million
lives. These sad events led also to the displacement of millions of people, both inside and outside
the country, leaving behind many widows and orphans, as well as their properties including
lands, houses, etc.
After Genocide, the 1959 refugees were expected to return to their natal country as stipulated the
Arusha Peace Accords. Under its Article 2, the Arusha Peace Accords between the Government
of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front on the Repatriation of Rwandan
Refugees and the Resettlement of Displaced Persons stated that” …every returnee is free to settle
in any area of his/her choice in the country, as long as he/she does not infringe on somebody
else‟s rights”.9
Article 3 of the same Protocol stated that “In order to resettle the repatriated
persons, the Government of Rwanda should release all unoccupied land so identified by the
“Repatriation Commission".10
On the other hand, Article 4 of the Protocol stipulated that “the
right to property is a fundamental right for all Rwandans”. As a result, the refugees have the right
to repossess their properties upon their return. However, the two parties recommended that “with
a view to promoting social harmony and national reconciliation, refugees who fled the country
over 10 years ago should not reclaim their properties which have been occupied by other
individuals. To compensate them, the Government will give them land and assist them to
resettle".
7
G.U. Mugiraneza, “The Origin of Organic Land Law in Rwanda (More on this Law)”, available at
www.igihe.com/twandikire/article/inkomoko-y-itegeko-ry-ubutaka-mu, accessed on 20th
February, 2016
(Authors‟translation).
8
Idem.
9
Arusha Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front,
Arusha, Article 2.
10
The Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front,
Arusha, Article 3.

3
In the first place, the return of the 1959 refugees gave rise to a real land problem. It was found
that it was difficult to apply the Arusha Peace Accords to those cases of first returnees. As an
interim measure, some of the former 1959 refugees occupied land that had been abandoned.11
Other former refugees were given plots on public land and vacant land on which they could
resettle and produce.
The legislation that was in place before the Organic Law No. 08/2005 of 14/07/2005 relating to
land regimes in Rwanda was characterized by enormous problems in which for example, the
existence of a pluralistic legal system; lack of an adequate land legislation; lack of an appropriate
institutional framework; the land regime that was discriminatory to women; etc.12
Apart from the above mentioned issues that characterized the Rwandan land legislation, there is
also the matter of evidences (proofs) in proprietary land rights that has characterized the
Rwandan land regime in course of its history. For instance, those who acquired lands through
customary means could claim their ownership rights by showing evidences like last will made by
their parents, or by testimonies of witnesses. And for those who acquired lands through written
laws, they could claim their ownership rights either by sale contracts, by the communal land
certificate as well as the certificate of land allocation under the 2005 and 2013 laws governing
the use and management of land in Rwanda. All those led to controversies in decisions that were
rendered by Rwandan courts when land related cases were brought before them specifically in
matters of evidences.
11
The situation of letting those refugees occupy those lands resulted in the 1996 regulations on the temporary
management of abandoned land in Rwanda. It was regulated by the ministerial order no 01/1996 regarding the
temporary management of land property (Instruction ministérielle no. 01/1996 du 23 septembre 1996 portant
mesures de gestion provisoire des propriétés foncières, du 23 Septembre, 1996, available at:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b50017.html.).
12
See supra note 2, p. 124.

4
0. II PROBLEM STATEMENT
From different periods of time, a number of statutes and orders were passed to regulate land
related matters. They include: The 1885 Ordonance / Order relating to the occupation of land in
Rwanda, The decree of 24/01/1943 related to gratuitous cessions and concessions to scientific
and religious associations and to public entities in Rwanda, The communal law/District law of
23/11/1963, The law of 30/03/1982 relating to soil conservation in Rwanda, Arusha Peace
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic
Front, Rwandan constitution of 04/June 2003, The Organic Law No. 08/2005 of 14/07/2005
relating to land regimes in Rwanda, Ministerial Order N°002/2008 of 01/4/2008 determining
modalities of land registration, as well as the law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in
Rwanda.
Though all of those laws were put in place, the Rwandan land regime still manifests some
controversies in relation with evidences over land where you can find more than one people
claiming ownership over the same land. There are some alternatives that those legal instruments
provide.
Starting with the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic of Rwanda, it states that Every
person has a right to private property, whether personal or owned in association with others.
Private property, whether individually or collectively owned, is inviolable. The right to property
may not be interfered with except in public interest, in circumstances and procedures determined
by law and subject to fair and prior compensation.13
Under article 35, it provides that, Private
ownership of land and other rights related to land are granted by the State. The law specifies the
modalities of acquisition, transfer and use of land.
The law governing land in Rwanda provides for the way of proving the ownership of the land. It
states that Certifying that the land has been allocated or leased shall be evidenced by a certificate
13
The Rwandan Constitution of 4th
June, 2003 revised in 2015, Article 34.

5
of land registration issued by the registrar of land titles. In case of loss or damage of the
certificate of land registration, the registrar of land titles issued a replacing one.14
With regards to the private ownership of land and the emphyteutic lease, it is legally stated that
they can only be legally established by a Certificate of Registration of the title recognised or
granted by the State. The private ownership of immovable by incorporation and other real rights
such as emphyteusis owned separately from the land are only legally established by a Certificate
of Registration of the authentic deed that serves as its base.15
Furthermore, the law on evidence and its production provides that An authentic deed is one,
which has been drawn or received in accordance with all the required formalities, by a public
officer authorised to officiate in the place where the deed was drawn.16
Article 13, paragraphs 1-
2 of the very law states that The authentic deed is trustworthy and binding for all the parties as
regard its contents are witnessed by a civil servant or where the latter worked them out within his
or her mission. The contents of such a deed shall not be challenged except where there is
prosecution for falsification of authentic documents or where either party alleges forgery. An
authentic deed turns into evidence unless its validity is challenged by one of the parties, or an
interested third party, by the use of contrary evidence in writing, evidence corroborated by partial
writing, or any other means provided for by the law.
The law on Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure on its part relating to the
execution of judgments, it also states that Provisional execution order shall be issued by the
court on its own motion, even without a security if the evidence of litigation is an authentic
deed.17
From this provision, one can wonder how the court decides so without assessing the
validity of such a deed and the conditions under which it was obtained by the party who
presented it to the court.
14
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, O.G of 16/06/2013, Article 18.
15
The Ministerial Order N°002/2008 of 01/4/2008 determining modalities of land registration, O.G of 01/08/2008
Article 4.
16
The law n° 15/2004 relating to evidence and its production, O.G special No of 19/07/2004, Article 11.
17
The Law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure (CCLAP), Article 212.

6
Apart from the above highlighted legislations, the Rwandan authorities (Executive, Judicial)
have faced a number of problems of allocating lands of people that belonged to others. Though
evidences existed, persons claimed their private ownership rights over lands that were occupied
by other people. When the real owners all those lands and properties, get back, it becomes too
difficult to know, who is to be considered as the owner of the occupied land, what can be taken
as real evidence (proof) while settling such disputes, what are conditions to be followed, which
legislations can be applied to such cases, Etc.
Some returnees claimed their ownership rights on the basis that the occupied land was their own
“Intizo”, others; having the orphans‟ status claimed their ownership rights on the basis that the
occupied land belonged to their parents.18
From that, One can imagine a situation where 67 families in Rubavu District that were given
land of 80 hectares in 1995 for use, habitation and production of their daily needs were required
by the owner of that land to quit his land after court proceedings.19
This is a considerable issue
that should be settled to avoid the controversies of evidences in land related matters and as to
protect the private ownership of the owner of the land. In cases to be dealt with in this research,
18
These are the questions that were met and developed by different courts. Their rulings are quietly similar with
regard to the evidences that they took as the basis of their judgments. Those evidences include Testimonies of
different witnesses, some authentic deeds provided by litigants during the trial... And this led to the proof of truth of
the real owner of the land. See the judgments: Supreme Court of the Republic of Rwanda, case law no
RCAA
0018/13/CS HARERIMANA Vs. SEBUKAYIRE, case decided by the Supreme Court on 24th
/12/2014, Intermediate
court of RUSIZI; Case no
RCA 0076/10/TGI/RSZ: KANYABASHI Jean Vs NYIRANZAYINO Marie, Case
decided by the Intermediate court of RUSIZI, on 28/06/2011, Intermediate court of Muhanga, Case no
RCA
0263/011/TGI/MHG, NZAMUKOSHA Vs NSIGAYEHE, Case decided by the intermediate court of Muhanga, on
26/09/2011, Intermediate Court of Rubavu, Case no
RCA 0300/14/TGI/RBV MUKAMAZIMPAKA Agnès Vs
NYIRANDUSHYI, YAKUZE and NTARIBANANIRA, case decided by the Intermediate Court of Rubavu, on 14th
042015, Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe, Case no
RCA013/14/TGI/NYBE, MAPYISI Ladislas Vs KARAMBIZI
Vincent and MUKARUZAMBA Epiphanie, Case decided on 05/06/2014, Primary court of Kibeho, case no
RC
0336/O11/TB/KBH, KARANGWA Rosalie Vs HAVUGIMANA Phillipe, Case decided on 30/10/2014, Primary
court of Ruhango, Case no
RC 0642/013/TB/RHGO, Case decided on 22/01/2015, Intermediate court of Muhanga,
case no RCA 0025/15/TGI /MHG, Kanobana Viateur and Umulinga Marceline Vs Mukansoro Esther, case decided
on 29/12/2015, Intermediate court of Muhanga, Case no
RCA 0073/13/TGI/MHG, MUKAMUSONI Assia Vs
MUSONERA Venuste, HAGABIYAREMYE Innocent, et. al., case decided on 15/10/2015.
19
P. Maisha, “Rubavu: They were shelted by the state in 1995 but now they are getting denounced of their rights
over the allocated land (Batujwe na Leta mu 1995 none ubu bagiye kwamburwa aho bari bahawe)”, Available at
file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/LAND%20LITIGATION/Rubavu%20%20Batujwe%20na%20Leta%20mu%20199
5%20none%20ubu%20bagiye%20kwamburwa%20aho%20bari%20bahawe%20%E2%80%93%20UMUSEKE.htm,
Lastly accessed on 05th
February, 2106. (Author‟s translation).

7
courts have decided according to evidences that were produced by parties. It is from this those
evidences that the key loop hole to be analysed is built.
In point of fact, Laws provide that, the certificate of ownership issued by a competent authority
is a full evidence of ownership over the land. Such deed is trustworthy and binding for all the
parties as regard its contents are witnessed by a civil servant or where the latter worked them out
within his or her mission. The law also recognises the contents of such a deed to be non
challengeable except where there is prosecution for falsification of authentic documents or where
either party alleges forgery. However, in all cases dealt with, land certificates have been
challenged and declared null and void by courts. Courts did not only consider the land
certificates as the only proof of proprietary rights, rather they went far; search for more
evidences to find out the real owners of lands in questions.
Therefore, the research intends to propose the harmonisation between court decisions referring to
the Supreme Court case law that has highlighted different meaningful and important elements
that must be taken into account while deciding land related matters in terms of evidences to such
land.
0. III RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This part will be about the problematic to which the study will be focusing. That is how the
Rwandan legal system applies Evidence in proprietary land rights. This will be supplemented by
the following research questions:
 In case more than evidence is produced over the land as the proof of ownership, which
one is to be relevant, and which one will be rejected?
 Under which conditions, can a land title be nullified?
 What were evidences in land proprietary rights in course of Rwandan history?
 What are the strategies taken into account to overcome the problems of Rwandan
returnees for their properties (land) that were occupied by others?

8
 What were the approaches/ attitudes of courts vis à vis the appreciation of evidence in
proprietary land rights?
0. IV. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Through the analysis of different case laws, the study will be intending to put aware the ways
through which persons who are/ were deprived of their proprietary land rights can regain them.
In addition, the study intends to recall people that though they possess land titles, their rights
over land can be limited in case it is proved that such titles were got in illegality. So, this study
will be intending to analyse, look for the basis and find out how the judicial organ has tried to
overcome the above mentioned problems that are attached to land (including those of “Intizo”,
lands acquired through customary ways, lands acquired through land sharing whereas they
belonged to others, those of orphans and other Rwandan returnees that were back to their natal
state after the 1959 atrocities, and the massacres of 1994). Thus, those are specific issues
relating to evidences in land proprietary in Rwanda.
0. V RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
For the interest and purpose of this research, casuistic method will be first used; by analysing
cases on evidence in land related matters. Qualitative research methodology will be used. There
will be collection of information by review of available literature either libraries or the internet.
Various legal texts on land including International treaties which recognize the right to property
will be referred to. Various books both published and unpublished will be consulted as well.
0.VI SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
The research is conducted with the main aim of looking for proprietary land rights, through the
analysis of case laws decided by Rwandan courts. In doing so, the analysis of those cases
specifically goes with the historical evolution of proprietary land rights in Rwanda, what were
the proofs of ownership land rights, and how different laws and orders provided for such rights
along the history. To turn to the intended objectives, by analysis, the research bases to the 2014

9
milestone decision of the Supreme Court. Such case law has provided a number of issues to be
taken into account while proving one‟s ownership land rights. They include: the consideration of
origin of such right in question and the way that one has acquired the proof of such right in
question. Hence, throughout this research, significant decided cases are analysed and see how the
proprietary land rights were protected and provided for by courts in their rulings.
0.VII ORGANISATION OF THE RESEARCH
The research is subdivided into four chapters. It is organised as follow:
The first chapter of the research goes with the general presentation of the research. It is made of
a general introduction, the problem statement, legal questions to be solved through the research,
objectives and significance of the research, research methodology as well as the research
hypothesis.
 The second chapter comprises of the common understanding of the key concept of
ownership rights. It also discusses the historical evolution and protection of ownership
land rights in Rwanda, prerogatives attached to ownership rights as well as limitations
upon such rights.
 The third chapter, which is the heart of the research, encompasses the legal analysis of
different cases, as decided by different courts. All cases turn around the proprietary land
rights, as provided for by land laws and as decided by courts. Into three sections, it is
highlighted how courts have made decisions regarding also the way laws provided for the
ownership rights over land.
 In fine, the research comes up with concluding remarks. General conclusions with further
recommendations from the analsyed case laws are provided. This is developed in the
forth chapter.

10
CHAP.I HISTORICAL PROTECTION OF OWNERSHIP LAND RIGHTS IN RWANDA:
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
As the preliminary part of project, this chapter, under section I, is about the general
understanding of the notion of ownership rights over land, its historical evolution, and the notion
of private as opposed to public ownership of land as well as their limitations (restrictions),
evidences that are attached to private and public owned lands all in the Rwandan context. Under
section II, it deals with Evidence in land litigations. Through this division, the main focus is put
on the law relating to evidence and its production, the law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour
and Administrative Procedure (CCLAP), the Arusha Peace Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front as well as the 2013 law governing
the use and management of land in Rwanda.
Section I: General understanding of Ownership rights
I.1 Notion of ownership rights
In the first place, Proprietary rights refer to ownership or characteristics relating to ownership.
They describe all the rights that the owner of property can exercise.20
A proprietor or owner is
one who has the exclusive title to a thing; one who possesses or holds the title to a thing in his or
her own right; one who possesses the control or ownership of a thing in his or her own right.21
It
is the one who is master of his actions, and who has the free disposition of his property.
According to the Black‟s Law Dictionary, Ownership is the collection of rights allowing one to
use and enjoy property, including the right to convey it to others. It further continues to point out
that ownership implies the right to possess a thing regardless of any actual or constructive
20
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc, “Proprietary”, available
at<
file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/LAND%20LITIGATION/Proprietary%20legal%20definition%20of%20proprietary
.htm>, Accessed on 8th
February, 2016.
21
J. Bouvier, “Proprietary”, Available at
<ahref="http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/proprietary">proprietary</a>, lastly accessed on 8th
February,
2016.

11
control.22
In addition to this definition, it is noted that ownership rights are general, permanent
and inheritable.23
Secondly, the term Ownership can be defined in a duplex sense; that of Roman law and English
Law respectively.24
In the Roman law the idea of ownership is as the right to enjoy and dispose
of something in an absolute manner and equates it to dominium.25
It analyses ownership (and
possession) as an absolute legal relationship between a person and a thing. Interference with
ownership gives the owner a remedy in damages known as vindication or simply damages in
trespass26
.
To the contrary, English law does not treat ownership as an absolute concept but as a form of
possession or seisin (possession of land by freehold). Consequently, under English land law, the
right to remain in control of land depends on a better possession or seisin, rather than on any
notion of infringe. It does not base its remedies for infringe on the abstract notion of ownership,
rather, possession forms basis of such remedies. The question of whether a remedy is
forthcoming depends on the better entitlement to retain or obtain possession rather than
ownership per se.27
As for the Rwandan context, the ownership rights are also recognised. Ownership rights are
defined as the rights of disposing of things in the absolute and exclusive manner, subject to any
restriction of the law and the real rights belonging to other persons.28
Such restrictions of the
right of ownership resulting from the relationship between neighbors are established in the title
22
Black‟s Law Dictionary, 3rd
Edition, (1999), United States of America, p. 1131.
23
Idem.
24
T. O. Ojienda, Conveyancing Principles and Practices, Law Africa, Nairobi,: Kenya, p.7.
25
This refers to ones complete powers to use, to enjoy and to dispose/ alienate the property at will. In other words, when one owns
land, the law allows the owner to use, get fruit from it abuse and get the benefits arising out of that land which may
otherwise be referred to as“deprivation”.
26
According to the Law Dictionary (2nd
Edition), Vindicatio is the act of claiming a thing as one's own; the asserting
of a right or title in or to a thing. Law Dictionary: What is Vindicatio? definition of Vindicatio (Black's Law
Dictionary).
27
B. A. Nyakeri, Land Law: The Concept of Ownership and Acquisition Rights Land in Kenya, Bachelor of Laws,
(LL.B), Africa Nazarene University, 2012, p. 2.
28
Decree of 20 July1920 establishing the Civil Code Book II relating to property (hereinafter CCBII), article 14.

12
concerning charges on Land”.29
The following point discusses about the characteristics and
prerogatives of ownership rights.
I.2 Characteristics and prerogatives of ownership rights
The ownership over a given property creates rights and obligations to its owner. With regards to
the characteristics of ownership rights, they are: personal/ individual, perpetual and exclusive as
well.30
Starting with the individualistic character of ownership, it is that only the owner has the right
over the property. However, there are some cases of collective ownership like in successions or
in co-ownerships.31
With regard to the perpetual character, the owner of a property has/ exercises the rights over it as
it lasts (as long as the property upon which the right is exercised still exists.)
And as for the exclusive character, only the owner exercises his/her right over the property
(thing) save for usufruct and servitudes.
Regarding the prerogatives attached to ownership rights, Article 1 of the Civil Code Book II
makes an introduction of the concept of ownership and the related rights like the superficiary,
emphyteusis, and servitudes.32
Ownership right can be as the most complete real right one can
talk about because it is the only one which gives to its owner all the three prerogatives: Usus,
Fructus and Abusus.33
It is clear that, the rights to property may be defined as comprising the
freedom to dispose either partially or in full, taking into account restrictions and the rights of
others.34
With those prerogatives, one can exercise in full and complete way the proprietary rights
over a given property, as explained below:
29
D. M.Kayihura, F. Kigenza, Property and Land Law, Op.cit., p. 39.
30
D. M.Kayihura, F. Kigenza, Property and Land Law, Op.Cit, pp. 41-45.
31
L. Sebucensha, Property and Land Law, Student Manual, University of Rwanda, Butare, 2013, p. 33.
32
The preliminary title instituting the Civil Code Book II (hereinafter CCBII), Article 1.
33
L. Sebucensha, Property and Land Law, Student Manual, University of Rwanda, Butare, 2013, p. 36.
34
W. A. Schabas and M. Imbleau, Introduction to Rwandan Law, Les Editions Yvons Blais Inc., Cowansville
(Quebec), 1997, P. 96.

13
I.2.1 Rights to Use (Usus)
The right to use a property is that right that allows its owner to be served by the same property. 35
For instance; a house, by occupying it or a plot of land by cultivating it, building on it, or any
kind of use of such property; it also includes the right of not using it; the right not to occupy the
house, the right not to consume the goods, the right not to drive your car, etc.
However, some limitations on the right to use are imposed.36
Those include:
 Limitations established to meet the interests of good neighborliness like the legal
servitudes, limitations concerning the sight of your neighbors, the paths, the plantations,
etc
 Limitations for the general interests like in urbanization, protection of Memorial or
historic sites; Hygiene and sanitation rules; Agricultural policy taken by the ministry
concerned regarding to how a given type of land will be used; Expropriation due to the
public utility of your property.
Such limitations apply or affect on all the prerogatives of the ownership right.
I.2.2 Rights to enjoy the fruits from a property (Fructus)
Right of harvesting all the fruits that are given by that property (fruits produced from that
property): fruits that are harvested or acquired at times without changing the state or substance of
the thing (property), and products which on the other hand do not transform or change but
instead are destroyed and completely changes the substance and the state of the property.37
Thus,
the owner of a given property has the rights of enjoying the fruit, production that is harvested
from it.
35
I. Segal and M. D. Whinston, Property Rights, August, 2010 Available at
http://web.stanford.edu/~isegal/prights.pdf>, accessed on 20th
February, 2016.
36
X., Limitations of ownership rights, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/property_law, accessed on 20th
February, 2016.
37
Ibid. p. 38.

14
I.2.3 Rights to alienate/ dispose of the property (Abusus)
This right of disposing the property can be either physical or legal. It is physical when the owner
decides to destroy or demolish it to use the part on which it was for other purposes. And it is
Legal when he/ she decides for partial or full alienation of the right on his/her property.38
With
this prerogative, the owner of a property is entitled the transfer, alienation of his/ her property.
I.3 The ownership rights of land in Rwanda
The right to property is certainly dear to the heart of most citizens. It is enshrined in the
Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 17)39
, the African Charter on
Human and Peoples „Rights (Article 14)40
. Under this part, a brief historical background on
evolution of land ownership rights under Rwandan law is made.
I.3.1 Land Ownership System in Pre-Colonial period
Starting with the pre- colonial period, ownership of land vested in the Mwami (King) in the local
chief as well as in the heads of the family. People viewed themselves as having the rights to use
land, but there was no exclusive right to own it.41
In this period, the head of the family who had
cleared the forest and the first occupant for that matter managed Ubukonde42
or isambu of the
family.
The pre-colonial land system was characterised by collective ownership of land, and was based
on the complementary links between agriculture and livestock.43
Land rights were respected and
transmitted from generation to generation according to Rwandan tradition and custom.44
The
38
Ibid. p. 39.
39
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property.
40
The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the
general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws.
41
See supra note 11, W. A. Schabas and M. Imbleau, Introduction to Rwandan Law p. 95.
42
Ubukonde is a right that a chief of the family possessed on the forested land which had no owner. He deforested
once he acquired through custom with the owner. He could make his family the successor of such a land.
43
Republic of Rwanda: Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forests, Watera and Mines, National Land Policy, Kigali,
2004, p.10.
44
See supra note1, E. Rurangwa, Perspective of Land Reform in Rwanda, p. 3.

15
collective form of ownership that was in place, coincided with the other system of written law
which came into force during the colonial period.45
I.3.2 Land Ownership System during the Colonial period
Like most of African States, Rwanda was also colonized in the late 19th
up to 20th
century. It was
under the colonial rule of Germany and Belgium.46
During this period, specifically on the period of Belgium colonial rule, a number of legislations
were put in place to regulate land related matters.47
Those statutes provided that “all occupied
lands that were not legally recognized at the time were declared unregistered land vacant”.48
Land ownership during this period was meant having it registered though the customary land
acquisitions were also maintained and the owner of the land could not be dispossessed of the
land unless he no longer exercised the rights. Throughout this era, there was a legal dualism of
land ownership- where lands occupied by colonialists were solely regulated by written laws and
Rwandan natives remained regulated by customary laws. 49
Hence, during this period, the
proprietary land rights were proved by certificates of registration to lands occupied by
colonialists whereas those of inhabitants remained under customary law.
I.3.3 Land Ownership System during Post colonial period
After the independence, around 90% of the land was under customary law, written laws
continued to regulate few people and religious institutions. At the time, communes were given
the competence to land management. The law of 23rd
/11/1963 establishing communes provided
45
Idem
46
C. Toulmin, J.F Quan, Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Land Tenure in Africa, FID/IIED/NR, London, 2000,
p.10.
47
D. Ruzirampuhwe, Land ownership Rights under Rwandan Law: A Critical Analysis of the Organic Law no
08/2005 of 14/07/2005 determining the Use and Management of land in Rwanda, Dissertation, NUR, Butare, 2007,
P. 27.
48
Idem.
49
Missionaries‟ (Catholics and Protestants) lands, towns, and other commercial centres were the ones that written
laws were applied for. As stated under the (Décret du 24/01/1943 relatif au cession des concessions gratuites aux
établissements d’utilité publiques).

16
that “granting ownership rights on customary land is for the communes”50
. From this period,
communes started issuing land certificates that were referred to as proofs of ownership of the
land. This law was abrogated by the presidential order no 09/76 determining selling and buying
of customary lands.
Along this period, the country has experienced internal migrations of people. Those from
overpopulated areas of the country like Ruhengeri, Gisenyi, Gikongoro and Kibuye moved to
less populated areas like Umutara, Kibungo and areas of Bugesera.51
There was also conflict
upheavals which lead to genocide in 1994 where a lot of people fled and others were internally
displaced.52
To overcome this, the Arusha accord recommended those who had been away for
ten years not to claim their former land parcels.53
And for those who had been internally
displaced or who had fled to the neighboring countries, who at their back found their land
occupied, they had to share amicably or with the intervention of administrative authorities.54
These lands were shared regardless of possessing a certificate of ownership or not proving the
rights that the owner has to exercise over it.
Due to the existence of a pluralistic legal system; lack of adequate land legislation; lack of an
appropriate institutional framework; the land regime that was discriminatory to women, and
other land relate issues that would be addressed, the government has decided to put in place the
Organic Law No. 08/2005 of 14/07/2005determining the use and management of land in
Rwanda. This law was also replaced by the Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing Land in
Rwanda.
At the moment, proprietary land rights are evidenced (proved) by a Certificate of Full Title
which can be obtained for private land of individuals, state land, the City of Kigali, district land,
50
See supra note 22, p. 28
51
Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forests, Water and Mines (Hereinafter MINITERE), Land Policy, August 2006,
p. 6.
52
Idem
53
The Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front,
Arusha, Article 4, para. 2. This was applied to those who fled the country from 1959, 1962 and 1973 due to
successive ethnic tensions and/ or war.
54
C. Gasarasi, H. Musahara, Land Question in Kibungo, Butare, Editions de l‟Université Nationale du Rwanda,
2004, p. 2.

17
and land held by parastatals. Land under a Certificate of Full Title can be subject to an
emphyteutic lease and a notation of the leasehold is made on the certificate.55
Individuals, entities, and the State can own land in Rwanda. Landowners have the right to
exclusive use of their land, and land can be mortgaged and freely transferred. Though Ownership
rights can be obtained under customary law or formal law, they must be registered to be
recognized under the Organic Land Law.56
Without registration therefore, the owner of the land
is deemed to lose the rights attached on it if it is proved that there is any other authentic act that
certifies the ownership of such land.
I.4 The notion of private ownership over the land
In fact, the idea of private ownership implies that owners are free to do with their things
whatever is shown to be mistaken. 57
A private property system gives individuals the exclusive
right to use their resources the way they feel comfortable with notwithstanding some legally
accepted exceptions which come in as limitations to this freedom of one‟s exclusive use,
enjoyment and disposal of his/ her property.
I.4.1 Legal framework of private ownership over the land
Here, there will be an assessment of how the law provides for the private ownership of the land,
and its mode of evidence.
Private land in the law is an abstract human construct; a bundle of legal rights and
responsibilities typically defined without regard for the land‟s natural features.58
The Rwandan
law recognizes the concept of individual land and its mode of acquisition. Under article 10, it
states that “Private individual land shall comprise land acquired through custom or written law.
55
The Ministerial Order N°002/2008 of 01/4/2008 determining Modalities of Land Registration, O.G of
01/08/2008, Article 15
56
United States Agency of International Development (USAID), Property Rights and Resource Governance,
Rwanda, 2008, p.6
57
M. Haller, Private, Public and Common Ownership, West Deutchescher Velag, Opladen, 1998, p.1
58
E. Michelle Grant, Private Property in America: Land Use and the Ethics of Owning Land, University of North
Texas, December 2005, p. 55.

18
That land has been granted definitely by competent authorities or acquired by purchase,
donation, inheritance, succession, ascending sharing, and exchange or through sharing.”59
In fact, the mode of authentication of private individual lands is also provided. The law provides
that Certifying that the land has been allocated or leased shall be evidenced by a certificate of
land registration issued by the registrar of land titles. In case of loss or damage of the certificate
of land registration, the registrar of land titles issued a replacing one.60
This certificate serves
authentic act proving the ownership rights. But and in many cases, it has been contested due to
the mode of its acquisition as will be shown in the second chapter of this research. Hereunder is
developed some limitations of private ownership as provided for by different instruments.
I.4.2 Limitation of private ownership
Ownership right is not absolute.61
The African charter also shows an extent to which the right to
property may be limited. It provides that “if the cause is for public need or in the general
interests of the community, an individual right to property may be interfered with but subject to
the provisions of appropriate laws.”62
This part is in relation with the restrictions that are imposed upon the owner of a property. Those
limitations include prescription, those which are there for the general interests like in
urbanization(Construction license, Land occupation plans, etc), protection of Memorial or
historic sites, Hygiene and sanitation rules (e.g. stopping people from rearing animals in towns
and cities, not putting dustbin to a places near the house or where it embarrasses the neighbor,
etc.); Agricultural policy taken by the ministry concerned regarding to how a given type of land
must be used; Expropriation due to the public utility of the property (e.g. Land for the
construction of a road or a public school or market). 63
Such limitations apply or affect on all the
prerogatives of the ownership right.
59
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 10, para 1-2
60
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 18, para 1-2
61
S. Agaba, Expropriation of Immovables in Rwanda, Dissertation, Butare, 1999, p.12 (Unpublished).
62
The African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights (hereinafter ACHPR), duly ratified by Rwanda on 17th
May,
1983, Article 14.
63
L. Sebucensha, Property and Land Law, op.cit. p.19.

19
I.4.2.1 Prescription (article 45 of 2013 land law)
Through the process of prescription, a person can lose (extinctive prescription) or acquire
(acquisitive prescription) ownership rights over the land or any other property in limit of time.
The term prescription refers to a procedure of definitive possession of rights over property or
losing rights over property due to expiration of a certain period of time provided for by law.64
Prescription is a means through which, one acquires or free from ownership of a given property,
by a given lapse of time and pursuant to the conditions determined by the law.65
In addition, under the law governing land in Rwanda, the Prescription period over land is and the
prescription is ascertained by a decision of a competent court.66
However, in case of Fraudulent
occupation of the land, A person who occupies vacant and escheat land or other people's land,
cannot invoke the right to prescription to claim definite right on it, even if he/ she has occupied it
for a period longer than the prescription period.67
The issue of prescription has been raised in the case of KANYABASHI Jean Vs
NYIRANZAYINO Marie before the Intermediate court of Rusizi. In 2011, the former was
claiming ownership rights to the land that was occupied by the later in 1956. He argued that
those rights were acquired through ascending partitions from his father RUBANZA Raphael. In
deciding, the court takes its basis on article 70 of the law 2005 governing use and management of
land in Rwanda stating that “In matters related to land, the right to pursue land lordship shall be
prescribed for thirty (30) years.”68
64
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 2,21o
.
65
The preliminary title instituting book III of the civil code relating to law of obligations (hereinafter CCBIII),
Article 613.
66
67
68
Intermediate court of RUSIZI, Case no RCA 0076/10/TGI/RSZ: KANYABASHI Jean Vs NYIRANZAYINO
Marie, Case rendered by the Intermediate court of RUSIZI, on 28/06/2011.

20
I.4.2.2 Expropriation for public interest
In adding up, ownership rights can also be restricted by the act of expropriation for public
interest. In Rwanda, the policy expropriation roots from different decrees such as the decree of
5th
February, 1932 and 30 July 1953 stipulates expropriation for the public interest69
. These
decrees were modified by the decree of 24 July 1956 relating to expropriation for the public
interest where Congo-Belge and Rwanda –Urundi used this decree 70
and this shows that
expropriation took place along the Rwandan land legal evolution. Today, expropriation for
public interest is regulated by the law N° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015 relating to expropriation for
public interest which has replaced the law no
18/2007 of 19/4/2007 relating to expropriation in
the public interest.
Once more, it is the dispossession of real estate for public interest, subject to legal formalities
and in return for prior and fair compensation.71
It is a sort of confiscation of land which is
followed by compensation. 72
Expropriation is also the act of the government to take the private
owned property to be used for the benefit of the public interest73
.
In simple approach, expropriation can be defined as an administrative procedure by which the
administration obliges an individual to cede his/ her property particularly immovables, to the
state for general interests, upon payment of a just compensation in advance to that particular
individual.74
Thus, The act of expropriation for public interest restricts the ownership rights over land in a
way that, only the State has the supreme power of management of all land situated on the
national territory, which it exercises in the general interest of all with a view to ensuring rational
69
Decree of 1932 and 1953 published in B.O. (Bulletin official), 1956 no
16 of 15/ August/1956, pp. 1418-1428.
70
Decree of 24 July 1956, relating to expropriation for the public interest, in F. Reyntjens and J. Gorus, C.L.R.,
Vol.II, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1980, p.1136 where in article 31 of the decree provides: ‟Le present décret est applicable
au Congo-Belge et au Rwanda-Urundi.
71
The Law N°10/2012 of 02/05/2012 governing Urban Planning and Building in Rwanda, O.G nº Special of 30 May
2012, Article 2, 22o
.
72
A. Kayitavu Mpumuro, La Problematique de la Legislation Relative à l’Expropriation pour Cause d’utilité
Publique en Droit Rwandais, Dissertation, NUR, Butare, 2005, P. 5.
73
X., “Expropriation”, available at <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/expropriation.asp>, accessed on 20th
February, 2016.
74
P.R. Kouri, Private Law Dictionary, 2nd
Edition, Editions Yvons Blais, Cowansville (Quebec ), 1991.

21
economic and social development; the State is the sole authority to accord rights of occupation
and its use. It also has the right to order expropriation in the public interest.75
Some acts of public
interest include roads and railway lines, water canals and reservoirs, water sewage and treatment
plants, water dams, rainwater canals built alongside the roads, waste treatment sites, electric
lines, gas, oil, pipelines and tanks, etc.76
From this provision, the owner of the land is limited in
exercising his/her rights over it as the state can expropriate him/her whenever found necessary.
I.4.2.3 Environmental regulations
Rwanda is party to several international conventions and agreements relating to environmental
protection and sustainable natural resources management, including: The United Nations
Convention on Combating Desertification (UNCCD), the International Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) the UN-Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic, and others.
Apart from those conventions, the law governing the use and management of land and the law
determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of environment in Rwanda
have set some limitations that the owner of the land has to abide by. Those limitations are in
relation with the use of ownership rights that should not infringe the environmental regulations.
For instance, under article 39 of the law governing land provides for the obligations of exploiting
the land in a productive manner. It states that “Any person owning land shall exploit it in a
productive way and in accordance with its nature and intended use. Any person who uses
another person‟s land, either basing on agreement he/she entered into with the owner of the land
or whether he/she was assigned to it through legal procedures is required to properly maintain it
and use it in a productive manner.”77
75
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, article 3. This is also
underpinned by the article 34, paragraph 3 of the constitution of the republic of Rwanda where it provides that “The
right to property may not be interfered with except in public interest, in circumstances and procedures determined
by law and subject to fair and prior compensation.” With this provision, it is clear that when it deems necessary that
there is a public interest act, the owner of the property can be expropriated from it.
76
The law n° 32/2015 of 11/06/2015 relating to expropriation for public interest, O.G No 35 of 31/08/2015, Article
5, 10
-70
.
77
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, O.G of 16/06/2013 Article 39.

22
In addition, the law determining the modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of
environment also provides some restrictions that should be respected. Under article 28, it
provides that” National land organisational surveys, urban planning or plans to set up grouped
housing, master plans and other documents related to national land organisational plans, must
take into account environmental conservation in selecting their sitting as well as the location of
economic, industrial, residential areas and leisure activities”.78
Form this provisions, the use of
land in a productive way is to protect it from erosion, safeguard its fertility and ensuring its
production in a sustainable way”.79
This law also provides some prohibited acts that owners of lands have to take into account.
Amongst them, they include acts of burning mountains, swamps, grazing land, bushes with an
aim of agriculture or organising grazing land.80
Therefore, if the owner is not able to use and
exploit the land in a prescribed manner, he/ she may be deprived of his/her rights over it. Again,
it is clear that, any activity in relation to the use and exploitation of natural resources especially
the land should be consistent with laws and regulations on the protection and conservation of
environment.
The next step highlights the concept of public ownership, its legal framework as well as its
limitations.
I.5 The notion of public ownership over the land and its Legal framework in Rwanda
The notion of public ownership of land goes with the prerogatives that states exercise over their
properties. Under the perception of public ownership, there is for instance; government
ownership of lands, streets, public buildings utilities, marshlands, lakes, and other business
enterprises. Under Rwandan context, property possessed by the State and its decentralized
entities is divided into two categories: those belonging to the private domain (res fisci) and those
78
The Organic Law n° 04/200508/04/2005 determining modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of
environment in Rwanda, (O.G. nº 09 of 01/05/2005), Article 28.
79
Republic of Rwanda; Ministry of Lands, Environment, Forestry, Water and Mining, Building Capacity for
Sustainable Land Use and Management in Rwanda, UNDP/GEF-MSP Project on Land Degradation in Rwanda,
2007, p.11.
80
The Organic Law n° 04/200508/04/2005determining modalities of protection, conservation and promotion of
environment, O.G. nº 09 of 01/05/2005, Article 38.

23
which belong to the public domain (res publica).81
The law governing land in Rwanda provides
for categories of lands that belong to the state: Public land which consists of land in public and
private domain of State, land belonging to public institutions and land that belongs to local
authorities whether being in their public domain or in their private domain.82
It should be noted that the transfer of land from the public domain of public institutions to their
private domain is also done by an Order of the Minister in charge of land on proposal by the
supervising Authority.83
I.5.1 Authentication of public ownership over land
Public owned land are authenticated/ legally evidenced by a certificate of allocation which is
issued by the registrar of land titles. The law governing land in Rwanda provides that “Certifying
that the land has been allocated or leased shall be evidenced by a certificate of land registration
issued by the registrar of land titles. In case of loss or damage of the certificate of land
registration, the registrar of land titles issued a replacing one.”84
I.5.2 Limitations of public ownership over the land
As far as the limitations of public ownership are concerned, it is clearly stipulated that “things
belonging to the State that are attached to public use or service are not subject to commercial
transactions as long as they are not officially put out of public service or use”.85
In this vein, the
above mentioned types of land cannot be put under commercial transactions, except if they have
been put out of public service or use. In addition to restrictions imposed for public owned lands,
they cannot be alienated as it is done to private owned lands.86
81
The preliminary title of the Civil Code, instituting part II relating to property, (Hereinafter CCBII), Decree of 31
July 1912 as modified to date (B.O.,1912, p. 799), entered into force in Rwanda by O.R.U. nº8 of 8March, 1927
(B.O.R.U., p. 264). Articles 10-11.
82
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 11-16 para. 2.
83
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 16, para. 2.
84
The Law no 43/2013 of 16/06/2013 governing land in Rwanda, OG of 16/06/2013, Article 18, para 1-2.
85
The preliminary title instituting part II of the Civil Code relating to property (hereinafter CCBII), Decree of 31
July 1912 as modified to date (B.O.,1912, p. 799), entered into force in Rwanda by O.R.U. nº8 of 8March, 1927
(B.O.R.U., p. 264).Article 10.
86
Republic of Rwanda, Rwanda Natural Resources Authority, Rwanda Land Administration System, Procedures
Manual, Kigali, 2012, p. 2.

24
Though all those alternatives of certifying lands through legally provided procedures were put in
place, proprietary land right is still an issue that needs to be addressed. It firstly goes with laws
that were put in place along the Rwandan history, secondly with what those legal instruments
provided as evidences (proofs) of ownership over lands. The following section describes how
laws which regulated land related matters impacted decisions that were rendered by courts.
SECTION II: EVIDENCE IN LAND RELATED LITIGATIONS
As a matter of facts and concern of this research, the following will be highlighted. How
evidences and proofs are provided for by various legal instruments in different land related
litigations.
Like in any other court proceedings, parties to the case are required to turn out evidences of what
they are claiming. Article 3 of the law relating to evidence and its production states that “Each
party has the burden of proving the facts it alleges.”87
Evidence is the demonstration of the truth
of a fact.88
Evidence is the means by which an allegation may be proven such as oral testimony,
documents, or physical objects; it is a set of legal rules determining what testimony, documents,
and objects may be admitted as proofs in trial.89
II.1 Arusha Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the
Rwandese Patriotic Front
From 1990, Rwanda was characterized by the period of war and many people fled from the
country to neighboring states. To overcome different problems of refugees who left their lands,
the government of Rwanda entered into agreement with the Rwandese Patriotic Front. In
agreeing so, they come up with the decision that every returnee is free to settle in any area of
87
The law relating to evidence and its production, O.G special no
of 19/07/2004, Article 3, para. 1.
88
The law n° 15/2004 relating to evidence and its production, O.G special no
of 19/07/2004, Article 2.
89
H. Mifflin, American Heritage Dictionary, 5th
Ed., Harcourt Publishing Company, Houghton Mifflin Publisher,
2011, P. 657.

25
his/her choice in the country, as long as he/she does not infringe on somebody else‟s rights”.90
Article 3 of the same Protocol stated that “In order to resettle the repatriated persons, the
Government of Rwanda should release all unoccupied land so identified by the “Repatriation
Commission".91
However, the two parties recommended that “with a view to promoting social harmony and
national reconciliation, refugees who fled the country over 10 years ago should not reclaim their
properties which have been occupied by other individuals. To compensate them, the Government
will give them land and assist them to resettle".92
Though this was set, the 1994 Genocide perpetrated against Tutsi also caused a great number of
refugees who left aside their properties. To settle land related issues, the ministerial order was
put in place to regulate the temporary management of land.93
This order gave the commune the
full authority to ensure on behalf of the government all the land properties in rural areas of their
jurisdiction that were abandoned by their owners.94
Further, for the well management of those lands, at each commune was established a commission
in charge of settling people temporarily in abandoned lands. The accord regarding such temporal
allocation was proved (evidenced) by an Agreement of temporal allocation of land made in
writing on condition of exploiting the allocated land in a productive way.95
Apart from that, the
law on civil, commercial and Administrative procedure also lay out some further procedures to
be fulfilled as discussed below.
90
Arusha, Article 2.
91
Arusha, Article 3.
92
Arusha, Article 4, paragraph 2.
93
Ministerial order no 01/1996 of 1996 regarding the temporary management of land, (Instruction ministérielle no.
01/1996 du 23 septembre 1996 portant mesures de gestion provisoire des propriétés foncières, du 23 September
1996, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b50017.html.), accessed on 10th
March, 2016.
94
The Ministerial order no 01/1996 regarding the temporary management of land, (Instruction ministérielle no.
March, 2016 Article 1.
95
The Ministerial order no 01/1996 regarding the temporary management of land, (Instruction ministérielle no.
March, 2016Article 13.

26
II.2The law of procedure (Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure)
Land litigation like in other fields of law, parties to the disputes must follow a set of procedures
from the introduction of the lawsuit up to its execution.96
In those procedures, parties are
required to produce evidences of what they are claiming before courts.
Article 9 of the law on civil, commercial, labour and Administrative procedure provides that”
Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the defendant wins the case.
Likewise, a party who alleges that he/she has been discharged from an obligation that has been
established must prove that the obligation no longer exists. Failure to do so, the other party wins
the case.”97
This has been dealt with in many cases where plaintiffs lose their cases due to lack of convincing
evidences. For instance, in the case Nzamukosha Vs Nsigayehe before the Intermediate court of
Muhanga, the former (Nzamukosha) failed the case due to the lack of convincing evidences on
the claim requesting ownership of the plot of land that she disputed with Nsigayehe.98
After the
provisions of this law, the law of evidence also stipulates more on evidences as discussed below.
II.3 The law of Evidence
The law on evidence and its production provides that “An authentic deed is one, which has been
drawn or received in accordance with all the required formalities, by a public officer authorised
to officiate in the place where the deed was drawn”.99
Article 13, paragraphs 1-2 of the very law
states that The authentic deed is trustworthy and binding for all the parties as regard its contents
are witnessed by a civil servant or where the latter worked them out within his or her mission.
The contents of such a deed shall not be challenged except where there is prosecution for
falsification of authentic documents or where either party alleges forgery. An authentic deed
96
L.Gatete, Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure, Course notes, University of Rwanda, Butare,
2014, P.1.
97
The law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure, O.G.nº 29 of 16/07/2012
(Hereinafter CCLAP), Article 9.
98
Case no RCA 0263/011/TGI/MHG, NZAMUKOSHA Vs NSIGAYEHE, Case rendered by the intermediate court
of Muhanga, on 26/09/2011.
99
The law relating to evidence and its production, O.G special no
of 19/07/2004, Article 11.

27
turns into evidence unless its validity is challenged by one of the parties, or an interested third
party, by the use of contrary evidence in writing, evidence corroborated by partial writing, or any
other means provided for by the law.
As a matter of focus of the research, evidences weigh differently. It is to mean that an authentic
deed values much than a private deed made by parties, as for testimonies that can be provided
witnesses in case it is deemed necessary. However, all those depend on the sole discretion of the
judge who decides the case. The next is what is provided for by the law governing land.
II.4 Land law
As a matter of focus of the research, Land related matters are also object of being proved before
courts. To certify that a given plot of land belongs to a certain person requires a certificate of
land registration.
The law governing land in Rwanda provides that Certifying that the land has been allocated or
leased shall be evidenced by a certificate of land registration issued by the registrar of land titles.
In case of loss or damage of the certificate of land registration, the registrar of land titles issued a
replacing one.100
Apart from the provisions of the law, its implementing ministerial order also
provides that” In case of loss or destruction of a duplicate Certificate, the owner may request a
new one upon production of a decision par the competent court. The new duplicate Certificate
exactly conforms to the former one as shown on the Register of Titles. It is recorded in the
Register of Titles and issued to the owner with reference to the folio of the previous certificate
and the reason for which it is issued, as well as the owner‟s undertaking.101
”
But as it will be elaborated in the next chapter, the land certificate also can be challenged through
different procedure.
In a conclusive way of this chapter, the ownership land rights have evolved according to history
of Rwanda. It is clearly indicated that, through laws, land ownership rights were provided. Those
100
101
The Ministerial Order N°002/2008 of 01/4/2008determining modalities of land registration, O.G of 01/08/2008,
Article 60.

28
rights can be enjoyed as can be limited. They enjoyment and limitations depends on the
provisions of the law, good neighborliness, etc. Unfortunately, the worst periods of the Rwandan
history made some owners escape from their properties to the extent that, some could lose their
rights while expatriated fault of the decisions taken by courts or other restrictions imposed for by
laws like the prescription period. The following chapter is about evidences as having evolved
along the Rwandan history with relevant case laws that are analysed throughout each phase.
CHAP. II: EVIDENCES IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS: CASE LAW ANALYSIS
This chapter is the main part of the research where evidences in proprietary land rights are
developed. This is made through some identified case laws which dated from the period of 1963
up to the law of 2013 governing land in Rwanda. This chapter also construes the decided case
law of the Supreme Court of 2014, where some new features which may serve as guidelines
while solving land related disputes were given. The following section discusses evidence in
proprietary land rights as provided in the communal law of 23/11/1963.
Section I: Evidence in Proprietary land rights under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963
From 1960, the powers of transfer of ownership and lease of state land were vested in the powers
of General resident (Resident Général)102
and his assistants of the government of Rwanda and
Burundi. The two governments could transfer such powers to communes in sell and lease of
lands not beyond two (2) hectares.103
Indeed, the modes of acquisition of land under the 1960 law were determined taking into
consideration whether the land is owned under customary norms or if it has been allocated by the
authorities. During that period, those who owned lands under customary ways might request the
102
At the time, Resident géneral was the one who served as the principal administrative officer in the territorial
jurisdiction of Rwanda-Urundi.
103
The decree of 11 July, 1960 relating to land, B.O.R.U. of 11th
July, 1960, p. 1136 (published in the Codes et
Lois Usuels du Rwanda, Volume II, January, 1997), Article 1.

29
government the full acquisition of such lands in accordance with civil laws.104
The register of
land titles where the land is located could issue the title to the owner upon payment of the
required fee.105
In the meantime, communes were given the powers over lands. Such powers
were regulated by the law of 23/11/1963.
I.1 Modes of acquisition of land under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963
After the mass atrocities of 1959, where people fled to the neighboring countries, the problem of
land started being at the top of conflicts among the population. Some policies were put in place
to attribute and reallocate lands to their owners while repatriated. Among them, there are:
Attribution106
(Attribution des terres), Reallocation (Gusubizwa)107
and sharing through division
(Kugabana).108
At the time, the acquisition of land by people was under the powers of the
communes. Therefore, the modes of acquisition under this period were based two systems. Those
are the reallocation to the repatriated of 1959 and sharing through division to landless people.
I.2 Limitations of rights over land under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963
In fact, the limitation of rights over land could be due to the decision of the commune or to the
court decision. Those rights were the right to use, enjoy the fruit and alienate but under certain
conditions. 109
For instance, as highlighted in the preceding paragraphs on the modes of
acquisition of land, when one acquired land by the process of sharing through division, his/her
104
105
106
The process of attribution was governed by the decree of the Internal Ministry (Ministère de l‟Interieur). Those
decisions were to be communicated to all commune leaders (Bourgoumestres), all leaders of Prefectures (Préfets),
Prime Minister, General resident (Resident Géneral) across the country.
107
This mode was reserved to those who fled the country in the 1959 atrocities by leaving aside their lands.
108
The reference is taken to the act of Commune Rwamiko of 11August, 1987. It was based on the decree law of 26
September, 1974 and the decisions of 3 January, 1963. Such decision was taken by the commune leader
(Bourgoumestre) in presence of the commune council to decide on the case of Nzirabatinya Etienne who was given
the land of Ndizihiwe after being refuge in 1959.
109
The decree no 09/1976 relating to buying and selling of lands governed by customary law and other occupied
lands (J.O., 1976, P. 198), article 2. It is stipulated that “lands governed by customary laws and other lands that were
given by competent authorities through legal procedures, its owner cannot sell them without the prior authorization
of the minister of land and the council of the commune where the land is located”.

30
rights fell limited by the back of the real owner of such land when repatriated.110
As stipulated
also under the decree no
09/1976 relating to buying and selling of lands governed by customary
law and other occupied lands, the owner of the land has limited rights over his/ her land in terms
of transferring through sale contract. For instance, selling a part of the land requires the
ministerial approval, upon consideration of the commune council and after having proved that
the seller remains with at least two hectares and that the buyer has shown the reasons of the
buying the land.111
I.3 Authentication of land under the communal law/ of 23/11/1963
By definition, authentication is a process or an act of confirming the truth of an attribute of a
single piece of data claimed true by a person or an entity.112
During this period, people were
given lands by the State on a temporal (provisional) basis, but with the option of getting full
ownership after a certain period of time.113
The lands allocated to people were recorded in the
registers of the commune. So, the endorsement/ confirmation of land at the period was proved by
“A Certificate of ownership issued by communes”.114
Such certificate should lose its validity in
case it is proved that, it was issued to an unlawful occupant or through maneuvers.
I.4 Analysed case laws
Under this part, three case laws were referred to, to show how courts come up with decision to
land disputes. The three cases take their origin to the 1959 political atrocities when people fled
the country by leaving behind their lands but at their back, they found them occupied by
110
This was motivated in the case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH. Under this case, Karangwa Rosalie fled the country in
1959 leaving their land located in Mata sector. During their refuge period, the land was occupied by Havugimana
Philippe. At the return of the former, she claimed it from the latter but absolutely refused to release it alleging that
he acquired it from the state (it is the state that has given him the land). Thereafter, Rosalie started the proceedings
of recovering her land before the court, which come up with a decision in her favour.
111
The decree no 09/1976 relating to buying and selling of lands governed by customary law and other occupied
lands, (J.O., 1976, P. 198), article 3.
112
X., “Authentication”, available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athentication, accessed on 20th
April, 2016
113
Intermediate court of Muhanga, Case no
RCA 0025/15/TGI /MHG (Appeal of the case no RC.
0642/013/TB/RHGO, Case decided on 22/01/2015), Kanobana Viateur and Umulinga Marceline Vs Mukansoro
Esther, case decided on 29/12/2015, para. 5-7.
114
Primary Court of Kibeho, case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe, para.2, case
decided on 30th
October, 2010.

31
others.115
Some plaintiffs were granted their proprietary rights whereas others were totally
deprived of them as shown below in cases under analysis.
I.4.1 Case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe
1.4.1.1 Presentation of facts and applicable law
In this case, the parties are: Karangwa Rosalie (Plaintiff) assisted by Me Sindayigaya Abson and
Havugimana Philippe assisted by Me Karinganire Steven (Defendant). The object of the
litigation in the case is land “Isambu”.
In fact, Karangwa Rosalie with her husband fled the country in 1959. They left their land located
in the today Rwinanka village, Mata sector, Nyaruguru district, Southern province. While
repatriated, their land was occupied by Havugimana Philippe. They requested him to leave but
the latter refused, asserting that he acquired it from the state. Rosalie started the proceedings of
how she could get back her land. The following are the steps followed before the Primary Court
of Kibeho.
Under this case at hand, the legal question to be analysed and decided by the court was to
determine the exact owner of the land basing on evidences presented by parties to the case.
By the application of laws in the case, the following laws were referred to by the court to settle
the dispute: The Law relating to evidence and its production in its article, 35, 65, 110 and the
Ministerial decree no 661/Org.Com of 26 April, 1961 on the attribution of land in its page 3,
paragraph 3.116
1.4.1.2 Application of law to facts and decision of the court
Before the Primary court of Kibeho, the two parties presented their facts with supporting
evidences. The plaintiff bases her facts to testimonies of her neighbor witnesses who all testified
115
Primary Court of Kibeho, case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe, case
decided on 30th
October, 2010, the Case no RCA 013/14/TGI/NGBE, Mapyisi Ladislas Vs Karambizi Vincent and
Mukaruzamba Epiphanie, case decided by the Intermediate Court of Nyamagabe on 5/6/2014 and the case no RCA
0025/15/TGI /MHG, Kanobana Viateur and Umulinga Marceline Vs Mukansoro Esther, case decided on
29/12/2015.
116
Primary Court of Kibeho, case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe, para3-12

32
that the land is hers. She supported her arguments with the provision of the Ministerial decree of
1961 on land allocation whereas the defendant presents his facts basing on the certificate of
ownership issued by commune Rwamiko.
After the presentation of their facts, the court applied different laws to them. In doing so, the
court takes reference to the provision of the Ministerial decree of the Internal Ministry (Ministère
de l‟interieur) on allocation of land and the law relating to evidence and its production.
With regards to the provision of the Ministerial decree of 1961 on the allocation of land, it
provides that “Certains territories ont été abandonées par des habitants qui sont refugiés lors
des derniers événements politiques. Afin de ne pas provoquer la dégradation de ces terres et
pour conserver la productivité du sol national, il est autorisé à louer ces terres à d’autres
habitants de la commune. Mais la location ne veut pa dire appropriation”117
, This can be
translated as follow: certain lands were abandoned by people during the last political tensions. In
the view of not provoking the degradation of those lands and conserve their productivity, it is
authorised to allocate them to other people of the commune. However, the allocation does not
mean appropriation.118
In addition, the court bases the law relating to evidence and its production. Under article 65, the
law states that “Only the court can assesses the relevance, pertinence and admissibility or
rejection of testimonial evidence. It shall not be influenced by the number of witnesses. It shall
mainly their knowledge of facts and the objectivity and sincerity of their testimonies”119
Furthermore, the court also bases on article 35 and 110 of the stated law. It reads that” A copy of
an original document, kept under the custody of an authorised public officer, is valid without
having to prove the authority or the signature or the thumbprint of the public officer. A copy,
photocopy, or other reproduction which has been certified in conformity the original, is always
valid until it is disapproved by other evidence. A copy, photocopy or other reproduction which
has not been certified in conformity with the original is valid unless supported by other evidence
not prohibited by law; loten the original cannot be produced. And that “A judicial admission
117
Primary Court of Kibeho, case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe, para9
118
Primary Court of Kibeho, case no RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs Hvugimana Phillipe, para9
(Author‟s Translation).
119
The law relating to evidence and its production, O.G special no of 19/07/2004, Article 65.

33
refers to statements the accused or his or her representative makes before the court. Such
statements shall serve as plaintiff arguments. It prohibited to retract portions of the statements
and to use them as counterarguments against the party. A person cannot retract a judicial
admission unless it can be proved that the admission was a result of physical torture or it was a
mistake of fact. He or she cannot retract under the pretext that he or she was misdirected by an
error in law.120
”
As a result of the case, basing on the presented evidences and their analysis, the court decides in
favour of Karangwa Rosalie. It bases on the provision of the ministerial decree by emphasizing
that those who got lands for the purposes of avoiding their degradation and conserving their
productivity should not allege it as if they were given proprietary rights over them. The
allocation made by the State was for those purposes and does not mean appropriation.
I.4.1.3 Analysis of the case
As far as the breakdown of the case no
RC0336/011/TB/KBH, Karangwa Rosalie Vs
Havugimana Phillipe is concerned, it is clear that the court has considered a positive approach in
making the analysis, investigation of the case so as to come up with a good decision. Specific
issues to be considered in this case are all based to force of evidences presented by parties and
their considerations by the court.
In fact, the court did not considered by the fact of possessing duplicate of the certificate issued
by Commune Rwamiko. Rather it entered in details by understanding witnesses, making site
inspections with local authorities to come up with concise decision of the subject matter.
I.4.2 Case no
RCA 0073/13/TGI/MHG, MUKAMUSONI Assia Vs MUSONERA Venuste,
HAGABIYAREMYE Innocent, et. al.
1.4.2.1 Presentation of facts and applicable law
In this case, the parties are: Mukamusoni Assia (Plaintiff) assisted by Me Rwabukumba Mussa
and Musonera Venuste, Hagabiyaremye Innocent, et. al., assisted by Me Cyiza Faustin
120
The law relating to evidence and its production, O.G special no of 19/07/2004Article 35 and 110.

34
(Defendant). The object of the litigation in the case is land “Isambu”(Appeal of the case RC
0648/13/TB/RHGO). The plaintiff is a spouse of Rwabukombe. She filed a case before the
Primary court of Ruhango requesting the land that they left in 1959 after fleeing the country.
That land was occupied by Manjwe Marc, who asserted that he acquired it through legal
proceedings (he was given by the State). The primary court ruled against her request and the
latter filed the appeal before the Intermediate court of Ruhango.
At the appeal level, she alleged that the court did not consider witnesses‟ testimonies, and other
motives that she provided. Legal question to be solved before the court was to see if evidences
presented by the plaintiff were not considered.
1.4.2.2 Application of law to facts and decision of the court
Before the intermediate court of Muhanga, Mukamusoni Assia assisted by Me Rwabukumba
Mussa presented their fact, showing how the land in question was left in 1959 and how it gets
into the hands of the defendants. After that, they also mention how the Primary court rejected
evidences that they presented including the testimonies from witnesses and her request of sharing
the land with the defendants, where Manjwe has accepted but others refused. On the part of the
defendants: Musonera Venuste, Hagabiyaremye Innocent, et. al., assisted by Me Cyiza Faustin,
they show how there are no inconsistencies within the primary court decision, since Manjwe has
acquired the land from the state in 1963.
In rending the decision therefore, the intermediate court referred to the law of evidences and the
law relating to civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. Taking reference to
article 35 of the law of evidences, it stipulates that “A copy, photocopy or other reproduction
which has not been certified in conformity with the original is valid unless supported by other
evidence not prohibited by law; loten the original cannot be produced.121
” Upon the motivation
of the decision, the court motivated that the deed of 1963 was corroborated by the testimony of
witnesses saying that Manjwe was given the land by Bourgoumestre.
Regarding the law on civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure, the court relied on
article 9 which stipulates that “Every plaintiff must prove a claim. Failure to obtain proof, the
121
The law relating to evidence and its production, O.G special no of 19/07/2004Article 35, para. 3.

35
defendant wins the case. Likewise, a party who alleges that he/she has been discharged from an
obligation that has been established must prove that the obligation no longer exists. Failure to do
so, the other party wins the case.”122
On this point, the court ruled that the plaintiff did not
discharge from the obligation. Therefore, saying that they have left their land without any deed
or testimony that may be referred to prove it, does not induce the court.
1.4.2.3 Analysis of the case
In final analysis of this case, one could consider that, the way that the court (Intermediate court
of Muhanga) has decided on it, differs completely from the way that the court (Primary court of
Kibeho). It is clear that the first has restituted the lost ownership rights whereas in the second
case, the plaintiff remains losing them, fault of lack of evidences as provided by laws.
For that reason, as it has been demonstrated in the above cases under this section, evidences in
proprietary land rights remained questionable. Laws are clear, but it is challenge how two
persons, with similar cases get different court decisions. To that, there should be a consistence
built on case laws, so that persons could not be abruptly deprived of their ownership rights.
The following section talks about evidences in proprietary land rights as per the 2005 organic
law on the use and management of land, with related analysed case law.
122
The law relating to Civil, Commercial, Labour and Administrative procedure, O.G.nº 29 of 16/07/2012
(Hereinafter CCLAP), Article 9.

36
SECTION II: EVIDENCE IN PROPRIETARY LAND RIGHTS UNDER THE 2005
LAND LAW
The coming into force of the 2005 organic law on the use and management of land in Rwanda
was considered as a solution to many problems and challenges that characterised land tenure
system and other issues related to land in Rwanda. It came into force to address a number of
questions like the very high density of population and pressure on land, excessive partitioning of
family agricultural plots, soil degradation and loss, scarcity of land and a large number of
landless, negative consequences of war and genocide, bad agricultural practices and overgrazing,
the predominance of customary law and inadequacy of written land law, lack of a viable and
efficient cadastral system, the inadequacy of human, material and financial resources123
.
On the other point, matter of evidences in proprietary land rights also remained in question; to
the extent that land related matters, specifically in evidences provided by the owners still remain
unaddressed. Even the process of land registration and issuance of land titles that come after the
organic law in 2008, also did not come up with a concise and clear solution to matters of
evidence over land. Below, is detailed the way lands were registered and how titles were issued.
II.1 Land registration and Issuance Land titles
Land registration is the system of registering, at local branch offices of land registry, certain
legal estates or interests in land. It is an effective system which entails the allocation of the land
to its owner by providing him/her a land title.
Eventually, the idea of land registration has come when customary law was no longer able to
cope with new conditions where land boundaries have become imperative, where permanent
crops have replaced seasonal ones, where credit is required on the scarcity of land, where in fact
individual proprietary rights have arisen and land has acquired a negotiable value.124
Through
land registration process, there raised different problems due to instruments that were presented
123
D. M.Kayihura, F. Kigenza, Property and Land Law, Op.Cit, p.144.
124
C.K.Meeks, Land Law and Customs in Colonies, 2nd
Ed., Frank Cass and Co Ltd, 1986, p. 326.

LLB DISSERTATION

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to LLB DISSERTATION

Similar to LLB DISSERTATION (20)

LLB DISSERTATION