SONARWA and Equal Pay after Promotion

SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd v Rugina is a significant Supreme Court decision in Rwandan labour law. The full citation is SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd v Rugina, Supreme Court, [2023] 1 RLR 115; RS/INJUST/RSOC 00001/2022/SC, Supreme Court, 8 July 2022. The judgment was delivered by a panel identified in the Rwanda Law Reports as Cyanzayire P.J., Nyirinkwaya J., and Karimunda J. The case is important because it treats equal pay for equal work as a legal right capable of enforcement through salary arrears, damages, and correction of social security contributions. It is not merely a case about one employee who was unhappy with his salary. It is a case about what happens when an employer gives a worker higher responsibilities while leaving the worker trapped in an older pay position.

The decision may be read as a warning against promotion by title only. Employers sometimes restructure, rename positions, expand duties, or place employees in managerial roles without immediately aligning pay. That may happen because budgets are tight, because internal salary systems are unclear, or because management assumes that a worker who accepts the role has accepted the pay. Rugina shows that the court may look past the wording used by the employer and ask what the employee was actually doing, who else was doing comparable work, and whether the difference in pay had an objective and lawful explanation.

Rugina Jason had worked within the SONARWA group before corporate restructuring resulted in the creation of SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd and related companies. He was later employed by SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd. On 14 November 2013, he was appointed Branch Manager of Huye Branch, with additional responsibility for commercial activity in Rusizi Branch. The employer informed him that his former salary and position would remain unchanged, although he would receive a monthly transport allowance. That statement later became one of the central points of dispute. The employer treated it as evidence that Rugina knew his salary would not change. Rugina treated the actual promotion and duties as evidence that he was entitled to be paid like others at that level.

Rugina and other branch managers complained that they had been promoted to greater responsibilities but were not being paid the salary attached to that level. Instead of receiving a final positive response, Rugina was dismissed on 12 April 2017. The case then moved through the labour authorities and the courts. He filed a claim before the Intermediate Court of Nyarugenge, asking for relief connected to unlawful dismissal, salary arrears, and employment benefits. The Intermediate Court accepted the claim in part, found the dismissal unlawful, and awarded damages and social security related relief.

SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd appealed to the High Court. The High Court maintained the central finding of unlawful dismissal while removing part of the award. The company then appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising several arguments, including objections about issues allegedly not raised properly before the labour mechanisms. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and maintained significant relief for Rugina. SONARWA then sought review due to injustice before the Supreme Court.

The main issue was whether Rugina, after being assigned the work of a branch manager or comparable managerial level, was entitled to equal salary treatment with employees doing the same or equivalent work at the same level. Two connected questions also mattered. First, were some of the salary arrears barred by prescription? Second, should certain dismissal damages be calculated on gross salary or net salary? These questions made the case wider than a normal wage dispute. The Court had to connect the constitutional right to equal pay with payroll evidence, appointment letters, internal regulations, performance records, limitation rules, and remedial calculation.

The Supreme Court held that the application for review due to injustice lacked merit. It sustained the Court of Appeal judgment and ordered execution of the award requiring SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd to pay Rugina 41,777,748 Rwandan francs, plus 3,000,000 Rwandan francs as counsel fees and 50,000 Rwandan francs as court fees, making 44,827,748 Rwandan francs. It also sustained the order requiring the employer to pay the balance of RSSB contributions calculated by reference to a gross monthly salary of 1,999,252 Rwandan francs instead of 514,581 Rwandan francs. At the Supreme Court level, the company was ordered to pay Rugina an additional 200,000 Rwandan francs as procedural fees and 500,000 Rwandan francs as counsel fees.

The rule of law from the case is fairly clear. Employees who perform the same work with equal skills, experience, and ability should be paid equally. Where an employee is placed at the same level as other employees and performs the same or equivalent work, that employee may claim the same salary or a fair salary unless the employer proves an objective and legally acceptable reason for different treatment. The employer may still grant benefits or bonuses to particular workers in appropriate circumstances, but once a benefit forms part of wages for employees in the same situation, it cannot be withheld arbitrarily from another employee in that same situation.

The Court grounded this approach in Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 as revised in 2015, which protects the right to equal pay for equal work. What is striking is that the Court did not treat equal pay as a broad moral slogan. It treated it as a rule that could be tested against evidence. The Court considered appointment letters, performance evaluations, internal rules, salary structures, and comparable employees, especially Ntwari Alphonse and Kanyamahoro Kazungu Deus. That practical method is likely to make the decision useful in future cases, because equal pay disputes rarely turn on theory alone. They usually turn on payroll records and comparators.

A major point in the judgment is that an employer cannot easily avoid salary consequences by promoting a worker in function while keeping the old pay classification. SONARWA argued that Rugina had been told his salary would not change. The Court's reasoning suggests that such wording is not conclusive where the employee's actual responsibilities, level, and comparators point in another direction. In everyday terms, a company cannot hand someone the keys to a branch, expect branch manager performance, compare the person with other branch managers, and then insist that the old salary label ends the matter.

The evidence aspect of the case is just as important as the equality principle. The Supreme Court did not accept a general assertion that Rugina belonged to a lower rank. The employer had to explain the basis of that ranking and justify the pay difference. The Court examined the documents carefully and rejected reliance on materials whose authority, consistency, or relevance was doubtful. That matters because employers usually control the key records in salary disputes. If the employer's own documents are unclear, inconsistent, or incomplete, the court may be slow to let the employer benefit from that uncertainty.

For employees, the case may suggest that the right comparator is central. A claimant should not simply say, I worked hard and deserved more. The stronger claim identifies employees at the same level, with similar responsibilities, skills, experience, and performance expectations, and then shows a salary difference that lacks justification. For employers, the lesson is the mirror image. If two employees appear similar but are paid differently, the employer should be ready to show a lawful reason for the distinction, such as material differences in qualifications, experience, responsibilities, performance, or contractual terms. Even then, the explanation must be real, not invented after litigation begins.

The prescription issue gives the case additional value. SONARWA argued that some salary claims had prescribed because the two year period had elapsed before Rugina's formal complaint to the Labour Inspector. The Supreme Court did not accept that argument. It reasoned that prescription of salary payment runs from the date on which the worker was to be paid, but that the calculation must consider steps taken by the worker to assert the right and circumstances in which the employer has not finally rejected the claim. Rugina and other branch managers had started claiming payment from 2 December 2013 and raised reminders again in 2014 and 2015. The employer had asked them to wait while the matter was considered. In those circumstances, the Court found that more than two years had not passed without Rugina asserting his right.

This part of the judgment is practical. Salary complaints in workplaces are often handled through emails, meetings, letters, and promises to review the issue. The Court's approach indicates that prescription should not be assessed mechanically by looking only at the last payslip or the date of dismissal. A court may ask when the employee knew of the claim, whether the employee took steps to assert it, whether the employer acknowledged or kept the issue alive, and whether the matter was pending before labour or judicial bodies. For employers, the lesson is uncomfortable but useful: delaying a clear answer may weaken a later argument that the worker slept on his rights.

The damages calculation aspect also deserves attention. The Court accepted that certain dismissal related damages should be calculated using net salary rather than gross salary, following the Supreme Court's position in Niwemugeni Jeannette v KCB Bank Rwanda Ltd. At the same time, it maintained the order for RSSB contributions by reference to the correct gross salary level. This distinction is sensible. Compensation payable directly to the employee and correction of statutory social security contributions do not always use the same base. Treating them separately helps avoid under compensation on one side and double counting on the other.

The case also sits within a broader Rwandan line. On equal pay after promotion, it refers to the Court of Appeal decision in Muberangabo Titien v SONARWA Holdings Ltd, where the principle was that a promoted employee should be paid like colleagues at the same level. On damages, it aligns with Niwemugeni v KCB Bank Rwanda Ltd. On review due to injustice, it connects with authorities that limit review where a party failed to use ordinary or extraordinary remedies properly. Rugina is therefore not an isolated employment case. It is part of a developing framework on workplace equality, remedies, and procedural discipline.

For employees, the lesson is to document the claim early and calmly. A worker who has been promoted without proper pay should keep appointment letters, job descriptions, performance evaluations, payslips, internal regulations, written requests for salary review, and correspondence showing that the employer received or considered the complaint. Repeated written demands can matter, especially where prescription is raised as a defence. It is also wise to identify proper comparators rather than relying only on a general feeling of unfair treatment.

For employers, the lesson is to make salary structures coherent and traceable. Promotions should be matched with lawful pay decisions. If an employee is given a higher role but pay remains unchanged, the reason should be clear and legally defensible. Statutory contributions should be calculated on the correct salary. Where a company restructures, continuity of employee rights should be handled carefully. A restructure may create uncertainty, but it should not become a convenient fog in which unequal pay is hidden.

SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd v Rugina is a strong precedent because it turns a payroll dispute into a structured lesson on equality, evidence, prescription, and remedies. It confirms that equal pay for equal work is enforceable in Rwandan labour law and that employers must justify pay differences with objective evidence. It also shows that a worker who consistently asserts a salary claim may resist a prescription defence where the employer keeps the matter alive. The decision is likely to remain useful for judges, lawyers, employees, and employers because it asks a simple but difficult workplace question: if two people are doing the same work at the same level, why are they not being paid fairly?

Source note. This article is based on SONARWA Life Assurance Company Ltd v Rugina, Supreme Court, [2023] 1 RLR 115, RS/INJUST/RSOC 00001/2022/SC, judgment delivered on 8 July 2022, with reference to Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of 2003 revised in 2015 and Law No 22/2018 of 29/04/2018 relating to the civil, commercial, labour and administrative procedure. It is prepared for public legal education only and should not be treated as legal advice for any specific labour dispute.

Suggested citation

Ronald Serwanga, “SONARWA and Equal Pay after Promotion” East Africa Legal Insight (17 June 2026).