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 held that transporting marijuana to another person amounts to trafficking, but reduced the sentence from 20 years to 15 years.
The appeal was dismissed because the High Court had already exercised its discretion in considering mitigating circumstances and lawfully reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum; no legal error or abuse of discretion was demonstrated, and the law prohibits further reduction or suspension of the sentence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Nsanzubuhoro Justin was the actual victim despite a name error, set aside prior costs, and awarded him damages and costs.
Nahimana Christophe is not entitled to sentence reduction because he did not unequivocally confess to the crime at first instance and committed the murder with aggravated cruelty, as evidenced by multiple stab wounds and premeditation. The claim of self-defense or provocation is unfounded since the evidence shows he initiated the attack.
Source excerpt
The appellants had already received the minimum sentence permitted by the new law (15 years) due to their guilty plea and cooperation. The law prohibits further reduction or suspension below this threshold, and previous case law allowing lower sentences is no longer applicable. The appeal lacked merit and the High Court's sentence stands.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld a child sexual offence conviction, finding the evidence reliable when viewed together, but reduced life imprisonment to 15 years.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same essential ground.
The Court of Appeal held the second appeal inadmissible because the applicants had been defeated in both lower courts on the same grounds: failure to prove ownership.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The Supreme Court found contradictory final judgments over matrimonial property and set aside later decisions concerning the disputed assets.
Explore more
