Rwanda Case Law

RADIANT vs CWINYAAI [

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00024/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability below 30% must be calculated using the statutory minimum wage (SMIG) as per Presidential Order No. 31/01, Article 17. For loss of earning capacity, the Court found that Cwinyaai provided sufficient evidence of employment through a salary certificate, and that damages should be calculated based on his net salary. The lower court's awards were adjusted accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Personal injury compensation
• Permanent disability
• Loss of earning capacity
• Calculation of damages
• Burden of proof for employment
• Application of minimum wage (smig)

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KANYANGIRA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00901/2024/CA

Kanyangira's own admissions, the quantity of marijuana (39 boules), and corroborating witness testimony established that he was engaged in trafficking, not mere possession for personal use. The appeal to reduce the conviction to simple possession was unfounded as the evidence demonstrated intent to distribute.

Source excerpt

• Drug trafficking
• Drug possession
• Appeals
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v TWAGIRIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00485/2025/CA

The court held that under Rwandan law, defilement of a minor is a strict liability offence for which neither lack of intent nor misrepresentation of age by the victim constitutes a defence or mitigating factor sufficient to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum. The appellant's claim of absence of intent was rejected, and the 15-year sentence was affirmed as the minimum allowed by law.

Source excerpt

• Defilement
• Sexual offences against minors
• Sentencing
• Appeals

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NIYIKORA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00198/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that where mitigating circumstances are established, life imprisonment may be reduced only to a minimum of 15 years. Niyikora’s appeal was dismissed.

• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Sexual offences
• Appeal procedure
• Criminal-sentencing
• Mitigating-circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDATIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00306/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that a 15-year sentence for defilement could not be reduced further where mitigating circumstances had already been applied.

• Defilement
• Mitigation of sentence
• Appeal procedure
• Sentencing guidelines
• Mitigation-of-sentence
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KWIZERA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00015/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal held that evidence did not prove cannabis trafficking beyond reasonable doubt, substituted possession and use, and reduced the sentence.

• Drug offenses
• Burden of proof
• Sentencing
• Appeals
• Criminal-law
• Drug-offenses

Read case analysis

KAYIRANGWA v. MUKARUSHAKIRO N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCAA 00004/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Kayirangwa Immaculée’s second appeal was inadmissible because she had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.

• Jurisdiction
• Second appeal
• Inheritance rights
• Legal standing
• Costs and attorney fees
• Second-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAYISHIMIYE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00465/2025/CA

The minimum sentence for defilement of a minor under mitigating circumstances is 15 years' imprisonment, as provided by the amended law. The appellant had already received this minimum, and no further reduction is legally possible. Precedents cited by the appellant are inapplicable as they were decided under previous legal provisions that have since been amended.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Sexual offences against children
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

Re NSABIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2025/SC

Article 41 of Law n° 30/2018 does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution because it does not discriminate between litigants within the same category. Differentiation between categories of accused persons, based on their roles and the courts of first instance, is justified by legitimate purposes and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Jurisdiction of courts
• Genocide crimes
• Appeals process
• Non-discrimination

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUNYENGANO

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00224/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Munyengano Aimable’s sentence could not be reduced below the statutory minimum despite mitigating circumstances, and dismissed the appeal.

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Minimum sentences
• Drug-offences
• Mitigating-circumstances

Read case analysis