Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
The Court of Appeal upheld Hagenimana’s defilement conviction, held that medical evidence must be read with other proof, and reduced the sentence to 16 years.
__CONTENT_FILTERED__
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over enforcement of foreign judgments, holding that a party must prove claims with evidence rather than mere assertions.
The Court of Appeal upheld the defilement conviction, finding the confession, victim testimony, and witness statements reliable, but reduced the sentence to 15 years.
The conviction was based primarily on the testimony of the victim and hearsay evidence from others who did not witness the alleged offence. The medical report did not conclusively establish the accused's guilt, as it did not specify when or how the injury occurred, nor did it link the accused to the injury through forensic evidence. The failure to hear other potential witnesses who could clarify the circumstances further undermined the reliability of the prosecution's case. Given the reasonable doubt arising from the evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's documents, including the Ugandan judgment and certificate of no appeal, were properly authenticated and met all statutory requirements under Article 82 of Law No 30/2018. The High Court erred in refusing enforcement based on alleged lack of proper authentication. The Ugandan judgment is final, not contrary to Rwandan public order, and enforceable in Rwanda.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the parties’ signed settlement agreement of 19 November 2024 resolved the dispute and is binding on both parties.
The appeal by Uwantege Louise was filed outside the three-working-day period mandated by Article 188 of Law No 22/2018 for expedited claims, which is a special rule overriding the general calculation in Article 275. Consequently, the appeal is without merit. The cross-appeal by Nizeyimana Venant is inadmissible since the principal appeal was not received. Respondents are entitled to attorney fees and costs as the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful.
Source excerpt
The appeal time limit for summary procedures is governed solely by article 188 of Law No 22/2018, which provides a three working day deadline from pronouncement or notification. This is an exception to the general rule in article 275. Uwantege Louise filed her appeal late; thus, the Commercial High Court did not err in finding the appeal time-barred. The cross-appeal is inadmissible as the principal appeal was not admitted. Respondents are entitled to court representation fees and case costs.
Source excerpt
Rwanda Supreme Court held that issuing cheques does not by itself discharge a debt unless they are honored and sufficiently funded.
Explore more
