Rwanda Case Law

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate persons mentioned during trial does not amount to treating them as accused, nor does it infringe on prosecutorial independence or the separation of powers. The prosecution retains discretion on whether to prosecute after investigation. The provision ensures judicial oversight and the pursuit of justice without undermining constitutional guarantees.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial powers
• Prosecutorial independence
• Criminal investigation
• Constitutional review

Read case analysis

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate individuals mentioned during trial does not amount to judicial encroachment on prosecutorial functions or breach the presumption of innocence. The judiciary does not conduct investigations or dictate prosecutorial outcomes, but acts within its constitutional mandate to ensure justice and complementarity among state organs. The provision is consistent with the separation of powers, prosecutorial independence, and the right to a fair trial.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial powers
• Prosecutorial independence
• Criminal investigations

Read case analysis

NTIJYINAMA N’UNDI v GAHIRWA N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00029/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that second-appeal jurisdiction depends on the value of the dispute at filing. Because the 2022 value was below 50,000,000 Frw, the appeal could not be admitted.

• Jurisdiction based on value
• Second appeal requirements
• Valuation of property in litigation
• Execution of judgments
• Auction annulment
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

NKURIKIYEYEZU v NGOBOKA

Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa kabiri bwa Nkurikiyeyezu Michel butakiriwe kuko yatsinzwe mu nkiko zombi ku mpamvu zimwe.

• Second appeal admissibility
• Same reasons for losing in both lower courts
• Sale agreement over immovable property
• Jurisdiction of the court of appeal
• Costs and advocate fees
• Second-appeal-admissibility

Read case analysis

BK GENERAL INSURANCE Co Ltd v IRAGUHA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00016/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that the correct daily income for a motorcycle taxi operator is 6,444 Frw/day, the disability percentage is 56% as per the state hospital report, and the deposit rate to be used is 10.10% as published by BNR on the date of the High Court judgment. Only the calculation of economic damages was adjusted; all other awards from the High Court were upheld. Legal fees and follow-up costs were denied as the respondent was not entirely successful.

Source excerpt

• Calculation of damages
• Personal injury compensation
• Deposit rate application
• Assessment of disability
• Motorcycle taxi income estimation

Read case analysis

NTEZIRYAYO v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rwemeye ubujurire bwa Nteziryayo Damien, rusanga isaka ryakozwe nta ruhushya rw'Ubushinjacyaha ritemewe, bityo rutesha agaciro ibikomoka kuri ryo.

• Drug trafficking
• Cannabis
• Search and seizure
• Exclusion of evidence
• Illegally obtained evidence
• Appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANDANYUZWE

Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko igihano cya Mukandanyuzwe Jamila ari cyo gito gishoboka kandi ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite.

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Fine reduction
• Appeal
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MBYARIYEHE N’UNDI

Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mbyariyehe na Nagaba nta shingiro bufite, rusigaho igifungo cy’imyaka 15 n’ihazabu ya 5.000.000Frw kuri buri wese.

• Drug offences
• Cannabis
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABIMANA Rudomoro

Urukiko rw'Ubujurire rwavuze ko igihano cya 15 years n'ihazabu ya 5,000,000 Frw ari cyo gito gishoboka, bityo ubujurire bwa Habimana Rudomoro nta shingiro bufite.

• Mitigating circumstances
• Sentence reduction
• Cannabis trafficking
• Fine reduction
• Minimum sentence
• Criminal-sentencing

Read case analysis

PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v SHUMBUSHO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC00027/2024/SC

Shumbusho Dan complied with statutory requirements by submitting a complete dossier including the police accident report and seeking settlement in good faith. Prime Insurance Company Ltd failed to demonstrate procedural irregularity or lack of evidence. Damages were correctly calculated based on Supreme Court precedent for professional motorcycle taxi drivers. The request for review based on alleged injustice was unfounded.

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Procedural requirements for claims
• Quantification of damages
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis