UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA_180827_kn

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MANIRAGABA_180827_kn

The Supreme Court found, based on consistent and credible documentary evidence, that N.A was born in 1990 and was under 18 at the time of the offense. The accused's reliance on a single, incomplete 'fiche individuelle' was rejected. The Court held that consent is irrelevant where the victim is a minor, and that the accused used deceit to commit the offense. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

Citation
RLR V.3-2016
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Accused: Maniragaba Eugène; Victim: N.A; Civil Party (mother of Victim): Nyirarugendo Madeleine
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Case Number
RPAA0257/10/CS
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Defilement of a Minor, Evidentiary Standards, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en, rw
Criminal Law Child Protection Law Defilement of a Minor Evidentiary Standards Sentencing Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Maniragaba Eugène

Accused

N.A

Victim

Nyirarugendo Madeleine

Civil Party (mother of Victim)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether N.A was under 18 years at the time of the alleged defilement
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supports conviction for defilement of a minor

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found, based on consistent and credible documentary evidence, that N.A was born in 1990 and was under 18 at the time of the offense. The accused's reliance on a single, incomplete 'fiche individuelle' was rejected. The Court held that consent is irrelevant where the victim is a minor, and that the accused used deceit to commit the offense. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court, Musanze Chamber, is upheld.
  • Court costs to be borne by the State.