Rwanda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Rwanda Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 3 court collections
- Last checked
Search and filter Rwanda case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Source-linked decisions currently available to browse
UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TUGIRINSHUTI
The Court of Appeal upheld Tugirinshuti’s conviction for defilement of a child, finding the evidence credible, but reduced the sentence to 19 years.
- Evidence in criminal cases
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Appeals
- Criminal-law
- Criminal-procedure
Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA)
The Supreme Court held that Article 143 of Law N° 68/2018, as written, does not violate Articles 13, 15, or 16 of the Constitution because it applies to 'any person' and does not contain language that discriminates based on gender. The Court found that FADA failed to demonstrate a direct causal link between the law and any violation of the right to bodily integrity or equality before the law. Alleged discriminatory enforcement or lack of clarity in application does not suffice to declare the law unconstitutional when the statutory language itself is neutral.
Source excerpt
- Equality before the law
- Non-discrimination
- Bodily autonomy
- Definition of criminal offences
- Gender discrimination
MUDATSIKIRA vs GISANABAGABO N’ABANDI
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a disputed land sale, holding that the sale contract was invalid because it was not executed before a land notary.
- Sale of immovable property
- Formal requirements for sale contracts
- Land registration
- Agency in property transactions
- Damages and costs
- Sale-of-immovable-property
Re FEMINIST ACTION DEVELOPMENT AMBITION (FADA)
The Court held that Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 is not contrary to Articles 13, 15, or 16 of the Constitution. The law is neutral in its wording, applies equally to all persons, and does not, on its face, discriminate on the basis of gender. Alleged discriminatory enforcement does not render the law itself unconstitutional. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a causal link between the law and any violation of the right to physical and mental integrity or to prove that the law is vague to the extent of violating constitutional rights.
Source excerpt
- Constitutionality of statutes
- Equality before the law
- Non-discrimination
- Right to physical and mental integrity
- Vagueness of criminal offences
- Gender-based discrimination
MUHOZI v UWASE N’ABANDI
The Supreme Court held that only one jointly registered marital asset was divisible, rejected the rest for lack of proof, and dismissed the extraordinary review application.
- Division of matrimonial property
- Rights of surviving spouse
- Extraordinary review
- Burden of proof
- Legal standing
- Compensation of advocates
GATARE v GASANA ET AL
The High Court reviewed Gatare’s challenge to a rejected appeal and auction execution, admitted the late appeal due to system failure, but upheld the auction and dismissed the review.
- Appeal time limits
- System failure as exceptional ground
- Public auction legality
- Notification procedures
- Damages and costs
- Appeal-time-limits
GATARE v GASANA N’ABANDI
The High Court accepted the late appeal because the electronic filing system failed and was reported, but upheld the judicial auction and dismissed the injustice review.
- Late filing of appeal
- Electronic filing system failure
- Judicial sale (auction)
- Notification requirements
- Compensation for legal costs
- Civil-procedure
SOCOBICO INDUSTRIES S.A v ECOBANK ET AL.
SOCOBICO Industries S.A. failed to prove that any of its business assets are currently possessed by ROBA Industries Ltd or were transferred through the chain of transactions originating from the auction. The right of follow-up applies only if the assets can be specifically identified, which SOCOBICO did not do. Therefore, no order for return of assets can be made against ROBA Industries Ltd. However, to clarify the composition and value of business assets to be returned by Trust Industries Ltd as per the 2013 Supreme Court judgment, an accounting expert must be appointed to identify and value…
Source excerpt
- Loan agreements
- Business assets pledge
- Mortgage and collateral
- Auction and enforcement
- Resale right (droit de suite)
- Burden of proof
SOCOBICO INDUSTRIES S.A vs. ECOBANK N’ABANDI
SOCOBICO Industries S.A failed to provide sufficient evidence to identify and prove the existence of its fonds de commerce in the hands of ROBA Industries Ltd or through the chain of transfers from Trust Industries Ltd and Catch Up Investment Ltd. Therefore, no restitution can be ordered against ROBA Industries Ltd. However, to clarify the composition and value of the fonds de commerce that Trust Industries Ltd was previously ordered to return, an expert accountant must be appointed to determine the assets as of the auction date.
Source excerpt
- Fonds de commerce
- Security interests
- Right of follow-up (droit de suite)
- Enforcement of judgments
- Auction procedures
- Bank loans and guarantees
Explore more