UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KUBWIMANA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KUBWIMANA

The appellate court found that the evidence, including witness statements and the seizure of 26 packets of cannabis, established habitual drug trafficking by Kubwimana Longin. His arguments for reclassification to mere possession/consumption were unsubstantiated and contradicted by the record. The sentence of 15...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RPAA 00225/2025/CA
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Appellant: Kubwimana Longin
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Case Number
RPAA 00225/2025/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Evidence Assessment, Sentencing, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Evidence Assessment Sentencing Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Kubwimana Longin

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Kubwimana Longin should be convicted for drug trafficking or mere possession/consumption of cannabis
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced based on mitigating circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the evidence, including witness statements and the seizure of 26 packets of cannabis, established habitual drug trafficking by Kubwimana Longin. His arguments for reclassification to mere possession/consumption were unsubstantiated and contradicted by the record. The sentence of 15 years imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 RWF, already reduced by the High Court due to mitigating circumstances, was the minimum allowed by law and should not be further reduced.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Kubwimana Longin is dismissed as unfounded.
  • The High Court judgment (RPA 00591/2021/HC/NYZ) is affirmed in all respects.