UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAYIZEYE

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAYIZEYE

The conviction of Ndayizeye Patrick was quashed because the only evidence against him was uncorroborated testimony from co-accused and a witness with a personal grudge, with no physical evidence linking him to the drugs. The law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of such proof, the accused must be acquitted.

Citation
RPAA 01404/2024/CA
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Defendant: Ndayizeye Patrick
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
29 January 2026
Case Number
RPAA 01404/2024/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
acquittal
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Standard of Proof, Testimonial Evidence, Acquittal
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Evidence Law Drug Offences Standard of Proof Testimonial Evidence Acquittal

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Ndayizeye Patrick

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of Ndayizeye Patrick for selling narcotic drugs was based on sufficient and credible evidence
  2. 2 Whether testimonial evidence without corroboration is adequate for conviction in criminal cases

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of Ndayizeye Patrick was quashed because the only evidence against him was uncorroborated testimony from co-accused and a witness with a personal grudge, with no physical evidence linking him to the drugs. The law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of such proof, the accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

acquittal

Orders

  • The appeal of Ndayizeye Patrick is allowed.
  • The judgment of the High Court in case RPA 00768/2021/HC/KIG is set aside in all its parts.