Re NDAYISABYE

Re NDAYISABYE

A petition seeking a declaration that a statutory provision is unconstitutional is intended to have the provision struck down if found inconsistent with the Constitution. In this case, since both parties agreed that Article 41 of Law No. 30/2018 is not itself inconsistent with the Constitution, and the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2020/SC
Parties
Applicant: Ndayisabye Alexis; Respondent: Leta y’u Rwanda
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
1 July 2023
Case Number
RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2020/SC
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Statutes, Appeals Process, Equality Before the Law
Constitutional Law Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Constitutionality of Statutes Appeals Process Equality Before the Law

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndayisabye Alexis

Applicant

Leta y’u Rwanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Article 41 of Law No. 30/2018 on the jurisdiction of courts is inconsistent with Article 15 of the Constitution of Rwanda (2003, revised 2015) regarding equality before the law and appeal rights.

Ratio Decidendi

A petition seeking a declaration that a statutory provision is unconstitutional is intended to have the provision struck down if found inconsistent with the Constitution. In this case, since both parties agreed that Article 41 of Law No. 30/2018 is not itself inconsistent with the Constitution, and the applicant only sought its amendment, the Supreme Court found no basis to declare it unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed