Rwanda Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Rwanda Case Law

  • 15 Dec 2026

    UBUSHINJACYAHA v BYUKUSENGE

    Citation
    RPAA 00471/2022/CA
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    RPAA 00471/2022/CA

    Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the accused’s confession and corroborating evidence proved cannabis trafficking.

    • Drug trafficking
    • Evidentiary value of confessions
    • Appeal procedure
    • Criminal-law
    • Drug-trafficking
    • Confessions
  • 29 Mar 2026

    MUREMANYUNDO v NYIRIMIHIGO

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RC 00031/2024/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RC 00031/2024/SC

    The Supreme Court held that both Law No. 22/99 (1999) and Organic Law No. 8/2005 (2005) applied. However, under Article 22 of Law No. 22/99, the right to challenge a sale of matrimonial property lapses after 5 years. Since Muremanyundo Jeanne filed her claim more than 14 years after the 2006 sale, her right to contest had expired, making the sale agreement irrevocable and valid.

    • Matrimonial property
    • Land sale
    • Limitation period
    • Good faith purchaser
    • Revision for injustice
  • 27 Mar 2026

    NSABIMANA v MUREKEZI N’UNDI

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2025/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2025/SC

    Supreme Court of Rwanda dismisses a revision application in a Nyagatare land dispute, upholds the prior judgment, and orders land record corrections.

    • Land ownership
    • Land registration
    • Revision of judgments
    • Evidence in civil cases
    • Boundary correction
    • Land-law
  • 27 Mar 2026

    Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

    Citation
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

    Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate persons mentioned during trial does not amount to treating them as accused, nor does it infringe on prosecutorial independence or the separation of powers. The prosecution retains discretion on whether to prosecute after investigation. The provision ensures judicial oversight and the pursuit of justice without undermining constitutional guarantees.

    • Separation of powers
    • Presumption of innocence
    • Judicial powers
    • Prosecutorial independence
    • Criminal investigation
    • Constitutional review
  • 27 Mar 2026

    Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

    Citation
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

    Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate individuals mentioned during trial does not amount to judicial encroachment on prosecutorial functions or breach the presumption of innocence. The judiciary does not conduct investigations or dictate prosecutorial outcomes, but acts within its constitutional mandate to ensure justice and complementarity among state organs. The provision is consistent with the separation of powers, prosecutorial independence, and the right to a fair trial.

    • Separation of powers
    • Presumption of innocence
    • Judicial powers
    • Prosecutorial independence
    • Criminal investigations
  • 13 Mar 2026

    NTIJYINAMA N’UNDI v GAHIRWA N’UNDI

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RC 00029/2024/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RC 00029/2024/SC

    Supreme Court rules that the value relevant for second-appeal jurisdiction is the value of the subject matter when filed, not a later valuation.

    • Jurisdiction based on value
    • Second appeal requirements
    • Valuation of property in litigation
    • Execution of judgments
    • Auction annulment
    • Civil-procedure
  • 27 Feb 2026

    BK GENERAL INSURANCE Co Ltd v IRAGUHA

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RC 00016/2024/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RC 00016/2024/SC

    The Supreme Court held that the correct daily income for a motorcycle taxi operator is 6,444 Frw/day, the disability percentage is 56% as per the state hospital report, and the deposit rate to be used is 10.10% as published by BNR on the date of the High Court judgment. Only the calculation of economic damages was adjusted; all other awards from the High Court were upheld. Legal fees and follow-up costs were denied as the respondent was not entirely successful.

    • Calculation of damages
    • Personal injury compensation
    • Deposit rate application
    • Assessment of disability
    • Motorcycle taxi income estimation
  • 20 Feb 2026

    PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v SHUMBUSHO

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RC00027/2024/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RC00027/2024/SC

    Shumbusho Dan complied with statutory requirements by submitting a complete dossier including the police accident report and seeking settlement in good faith. Prime Insurance Company Ltd failed to demonstrate procedural irregularity or lack of evidence. Damages were correctly calculated based on Supreme Court precedent for professional motorcycle taxi drivers. The request for review based on alleged injustice was unfounded.

    • Motor vehicle accident compensation
    • Procedural requirements for claims
    • Quantification of damages
    • Burden of proof
  • 31 Jan 2026

    IMIRONGO CoA - No 31 - January - 2026

    Court
    Court of Appeal

    Court of Appeal digest on criminal sentencing, evidence, appeals, procedural limits, and the effect of lighter later laws.

    • Terrorism
    • Sexual offences
    • Child defilement
    • Sentencing
    • Appeals
    • Evidence
  • 30 Jan 2026

    UBUSHINJACYAHA v UWIZEYIMANA N’ABANDI

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RP 00004/2024/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RP 00004/2024/SC

    The Supreme Court found that Muhire Jean Claude knowingly prepared and signed false valuation reports, Rukundo Rwigemera Prosper facilitated and participated in the forgery and solicited/received a bribe, and Uwizeyimana Marcelline gave a bribe to obtain a loan. The evidence, including witness testimony and documentary proof, established all elements of the offenses. The court applied the more lenient sentencing provisions and ordered all three to jointly compensate GT Bank for losses.

    • Forgery
    • Corruption
    • Criminal procedure
    • Sentencing
    • Damages