UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NAKABONYE N’UNDI

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NAKABONYE N’UNDI

The appeals of both Nakabonye Marie Rose and Munyaneza Alphonse lacked merit. The evidence against Nakabonye was sufficient and credible, including witness testimony, physical evidence, and her own admissions. Munyaneza had already received the minimum sentence permitted by law for drug trafficking with mitigating...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RPAA 00006/2024/CA
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Appellant: Nakabonye Marie Rose; Appellant: Munyaneza Alphonse
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Case Number
RPAA 00006/2024/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; prior judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Evidence, Sentencing, Appeals
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Drug Trafficking Evidence Sentencing Appeals

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Nakabonye Marie Rose

Appellant

Munyaneza Alphonse

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (court of Appeal)

  1. 1 Whether Nakabonye Marie Rose was wrongly convicted of drug trafficking without sufficient evidence
  2. 2 Whether Munyaneza Alphonse was entitled to further sentence reduction or suspension

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals of both Nakabonye Marie Rose and Munyaneza Alphonse lacked merit. The evidence against Nakabonye was sufficient and credible, including witness testimony, physical evidence, and her own admissions. Munyaneza had already received the minimum sentence permitted by law for drug trafficking with mitigating circumstances, and the law precluded further reduction or suspension of sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; prior judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court, Nyanza Chamber, in RPA 00684/2020/HC/NYZ dated 20/12/2023 is upheld.
  • Court costs are to be borne by the State as both appellants are incarcerated and exempt from payment.