For Awtseana Welday Abraham, an Eritrean investor behind Lakeside View Lounge & Restaurant in Rubavu, what began as a disagreement with his landlord over rent has developed into a bruising battle over two 10-year contracts, US$45,454 paid in advance for parking, an estimated US$350,000 investment and a property eventually sold to his immediate competitor.
Abraham says the dispute has cost him substantial business, subjected him to repeated confrontations and left him struggling to remain on premises he says he legally rented until 2034.
The latest confrontation burst into public view when sand, stones and other construction materials were piled around Lakeside View, obstructing access to the premises and disrupting customers and vehicles. Heated exchanges followed, temporarily bringing activity around the property to a standstill before Police and Rwanda Investigation Bureau officers arrived.
At the centre of the confrontation was Saga Bay owner Umwali Belinda, whose company purchased the property from Abraham’s former landlord, Eugene Sibomana. Saga Bay and Lakeside View are neighbouring hospitality businesses operating only a few metres apart.
Police and RIB personnel eventually advised the parties to remain civil and pursue an amicable settlement through District authorities or seek remedies before the competent courts.
But Abraham’s problems did not begin with the latest confrontation.
He alleges that Lakeside View had for some time faced repeated enforcement interventions that particularly hurt the business during some of Rubavu’s busiest weekends.
According to Abraham and several sources familiar with the establishment, Lakeside View had become a preferred destination for revellers during major events in Rubavu, including Kivu Fest, when large numbers of visitors descend on the lakeside town and hospitality businesses experience some of their busiest trading periods.
Abraham alleges that ahead of some of these major weekends, local authorities would close Lakeside View one or two days before the events and confiscate sound systems and other electronic equipment, only to return them on Monday, after the commercially important weekend had passed.
Several sources interviewed by Taarifa corroborated accounts of repeated enforcement actions involving Lakeside View.
Abraham further alleges that while his establishment was subjected to closures and frequent security checks, neighbouring Saga Bay was sometimes allowed to operate beyond prescribed closing hours.
Taarifa has not established that the enforcement actions were deliberately intended to disadvantage Lakeside View or favour its competitor.
Rubavu District authorities were asked to explain the alleged disparity but had not responded by press time.
Behind these confrontations is a contractual dispute stretching back to 2024.
Documents reviewed by Taarifa show that on January 1, 2024, Lakeside View entered into a 10-year commercial lease with Sibomana covering premises in Nengo, Gisenyi Sector, Rubavu District.
The financial terms were clearly structured. Abraham was to pay Rwf1 million per month during the first four years.
The rent would subsequently rise by Rwf500,000 to Rwf1.5 million per month for the later period stipulated in the agreement, with payments made quarterly in advance.
The arrangement also carried a substantial long-term benefit for the landlord.
The agreement allowed Abraham to renovate and modify the premises for his hospitality business. But when the tenancy ended, improvements permanently attached to the property would remain the property of the landlord.
In practical terms, Abraham would finance the development of Lakeside View, operate and pay rent over the contractual period, while Sibomana would ultimately retain the property together with qualifying permanent improvements made during the tenancy.
The lease was scheduled to expire on January 1, 2034. Any continuation beyond that date would require the parties to agree mutually and in writing to renew it; otherwise, the tenancy would end under the existing agreement.
Five months after the original lease, another agreement was signed covering a 16-metre parking area adjacent to the restaurant.
Abraham maintains that this space had originally formed part of the area available to his business before Sibomana insidiously separated it and demanded a new rental arrangement.
Under the second agreement, Abraham was required to pay US$45,454 for 10 years of parking in advance, through two payments in June and July 2024.
Crucially, that agreement states that if the property was sold, the new landlord would respect the existing contract.
Legal experts familiar with commercial tenancy disputes say a sale does not, by itself, simply erase contractual obligations already created between a landlord and tenant.
They say the dispute could ultimately turn on whether Sibomana must compensate Abraham for the remaining economic value of the agreements, whether Saga Bay is bound to respect the existing leases, or whether Saga Bay and Lakeside View should renegotiate mutually acceptable terms governing the remaining tenancy.
“They can’t just write him off,” one legal expert familiar with the dispute said. “That’s not only potentially unlawful, but economically catastrophic and constitutes a very dangerous legal battle between the three parties.”
Any compensation would ultimately depend on the contracts, payments already made, improvements to the property, provable losses and the determination of a competent court.
Abraham later complained that Sibomana demanded higher rent despite the standing agreements. Although he resisted the increase, Abraham says he eventually paid the higher rent.
Their relationship nevertheless continued to deteriorate.
As tensions grew, Abraham says he offered to purchase the property himself.
According to him, Sibomana repeatedly promised to revert to him on the proposed purchase. Instead, Abraham says he eventually discovered that the property had been sold to Saga Bay Ltd, the hospitality business operating only a few metres away and competing for essentially the same clientele.
Abraham says Sibomana never formally informed him that the sale had taken place.
Umwali has confirmed to Taarifa that she purchased the property from Sibomana. She shared a land title that bares her names and her brother’s.
The acquisition, however, raises questions about what she knew about the existing tenancy before completing the transaction and how the long-term agreements were addressed during the sale.
When questioned about Abraham’s contractual rights under the agreements with Sibomana, Umwali denied knowledge of their details and directed Abraham to pursue his grievances against the former landlord.
A purported termination letter bearing Sibomana’s name has also emerged.
The document carries no signature and was reportedly received by a Lakeside View employee rather than Abraham. Umwali denied responsibility for the document, while Abraham disputes its validity.
The relationship between the new landlord and tenant subsequently deteriorated into repeated confrontations. She apparently threw a party to celebrate engulfing her competitor and promised all her stuff to conquer the market thereafter before her plan turned into a disaster.
Abraham alleges that Umwali threatened during different encounters to make his life difficult and have him deported. He further alleges that on another occasion she threatened his life.
Umwali denies wrongdoing, and no competent authority has established that the alleged threats were made.
The dispute has also become entangled with commercial rivalry.
Local sources say Saga Bay had established a strong position in Rubavu’s hospitality industry before Lakeside View began attracting an increasing number of customers, particularly during major entertainment weekends. The two businesses operate only a few metres apart.
Sources familiar with the transaction allege that Saga Bay knew Lakeside View occupied the property under long-term agreements before purchasing it and question whether such a transaction could reasonably have been concluded without examining the tenant’s contractual position.
Taarifa has not established evidence that Saga Bay purchased the property specifically to eliminate Lakeside View as a competitor, and Umwali disputes allegations of wrongdoing surrounding the acquisition.
Yet Abraham had already been seeking institutional assistance long before the property dispute reached its current stage.
On June 11, 2025, he wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Rwanda Development Board seeking urgent intervention.
He identified Lakeside View as a registered company holding Investment Certificate N°C/3789/2024 and said approximately US$350,000 had already been invested in the business.
He warned that the investment was “at the brink of closure.”
On July 16, 2025, Abraham appealed separately to the Mayor of Rubavu District following an earlier discussion between the Mayor and his legal counsel.
According to Abraham and his lawyer, neither appeal produced substantive intervention at the time.
RDB has now responded to Taarifa.
Richard Kayibanda, RDB’s Chief Licensing Officer, said that based on information available to the agency, the matter appears primarily to be a contractual dispute between the investor and his landlord.
“We appreciate that disputes of this nature can be challenging for investors and we take seriously any concerns raised regarding their investment experience in Rwanda,” Kayibanda said.
He said alleged breaches of contract fall within the jurisdiction of competent courts, while allegations of criminal conduct should be handled by investigative and prosecutorial authorities.
“Based on the information provided, the investor has already lodged a complaint with RIB, and we encourage him to continue engaging with the relevant institutions through the established legal processes,” he said.
Kayibanda added that RDB “values every investor” and remains committed to maintaining a transparent, predictable and investor-friendly business environment.
He however, did not explain what action RDB took when Abraham appealed directly to its CEO in June 2025 or why the investor says that appeal received no substantive response before the dispute escalated.
The Mayor of Rubavu, Prosper Mulindwa, was also contacted about Abraham’s July 2025 appeal, the alleged repeated closures and confiscation of equipment, claims of unequal enforcement and allegations of harassment involving officials under the District administration.
The Mayor had not responded by press time.
Sibomana has similarly not responded to Taarifa’s questions.
Among other issues, Taarifa sought his explanation for demanding increased rent after signing the long-term agreements, the US$45,454 prepaid parking arrangement, what he disclosed to Saga Bay about the existing leases, why Abraham says he was not informed of the sale, and why the property was sold to Saga Bay after Abraham had offered to purchase it himself and was awaiting Sibomana’s response.
Abraham also sought assistance through the Private Sector Federation in Rubavu, where he is a member.
According to information obtained by Taarifa, the local PSF position communicated to Abraham was that Umwali, as the new property owner, had rights over the premises and that he should comply with her demands.
Abraham says he was directed back to Sibomana when he raised his existing contractual rights.
The dispute later spilled into a WhatsApp group used by PSF members to discuss economic and business matters in the district.
Abraham shared his ordeal with fellow members and was subsequently removed from the group, according to information reviewed by Taarifa. The circumstances of his removal remain unclear.
Another allegation concerns Lakeside View’s internal financial information. Taarifa has been told that Sibomana engaged an accountant who had access to the restaurant’s financial records and internal documents.
Abraham suspects confidential information may have been disclosed outside the company. Taarifa has not independently established that any confidential records were improperly shared.
Abraham’s legal team argues that earlier institutional intervention could have prevented the dispute from reaching its present stage.
According to his lawyers, the investor’s pleas to RDB and the District went unanswered while he was subsequently subjected to alleged harassment, threats and mounting commercial losses.
The matter is now heading towards litigation, with Abraham’s lawyers preparing legal action over the attempted eviction and enforcement of his contractual rights.
As of press time, Lakeside View remained inaccessible to the public, interrupting normal business operations.
For Abraham, the consequences are no longer confined to arguments over clauses in contracts signed in 2024.
His restaurant is losing customers, an investment he values at approximately US$350,000 remains exposed, and agreements designed to govern a decade-long commercial relationship are now likely to be tested before a competent court.
