NGEZAHOGUHORA v. UBUSHINJACYAHA
__CONTENT_FILTERED__
Source excerpt
- Content Filtered
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
- 1 court collection
- 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. RUKUNDO
The Court found that the combined testimonies of the co-accused and independent witnesses, along with the circumstances of arrest (joint possession and packaging of a significant quantity of cannabis), constituted sufficient evidence of joint drug trafficking by Rukundo Valens. The absence of a direct buyer or evidence of joint procurement did not negate trafficking, as readiness to supply suffices under the law. However, considering it was Rukundo's first offense and the large but not extraordinary quantity involved, the monetary penalty was reduced for proportionality, while the custodial s…
Source excerpt
- Drug trafficking
- Sentencing
- Evidence assessment
- Appeal procedure
UBUSHINJACYAHA v NKESHIYAREMYE
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld a 17-year sentence for defilement, relying on the victim’s testimony, witness accounts, and medical evidence.
- Sexual offences against minors
- Standard of proof in criminal cases
- Admissibility and evaluation of evidence
- Appeals procedure
- Criminal-law
- Evidence-law
GASORE N’ABANDI vs KURADUSHIME N’ABANDI
The Court of Appeal held that a clarification ruling cannot be used to revive a late appeal on the principal judgment. The appeal was dismissed as out of time.
- Inheritance
- Late appeal
- Interpretation of judgments
- Distribution of estate
- Late-appeal
- Judgment-interpretation
UBUSHINJACYAHA v. BAGIRIMANA
Bagirimana Pierre transported a significant quantity of cannabis across the border, which constitutes drug trafficking under Rwandan law. The sentence imposed is the statutory minimum after mitigation and cannot be further reduced.
Source excerpt
- Drug trafficking
- Sentencing
- Appeal procedure
UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDAYISHIMIYE
The sentence imposed on Ndayishimiye Jean Paul cannot be further reduced because it is already at the statutory minimum required by law for the offense of serious drug trafficking, and the current legal framework does not permit further reduction below this threshold, regardless of additional mitigating circumstances.
Source excerpt
- Drug trafficking
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Appeal procedure
UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRANSABIMANA
The Court of Appeal upheld Nyiransabimana Zawadi’s drug-trafficking conviction, relying on seized cannabis, witness testimony, and his investigative confession.
- Drug trafficking
- Sentencing
- Appeal procedure
- Evidentiary value of confessions
- Mitigating circumstances
- Drug-trafficking
UBUSHINJACYAHA v HABUMUGABO
The Court of Appeal upheld a 15-year prison sentence for defilement followed by cohabitation with a minor, but removed an unlawful RWF 5,000,000 fine.
- Defilement
- Mitigation of sentence
- Statutory rape
- Sentencing guidelines
- Criminal-law
- Sentencing
UBUSHINJACYAHA v HATEGEKIMANA
Although there was no direct evidence of sale or distribution, the large quantity (70 packets) and packaging of cannabis justified a conviction for possession with intent to distribute (storage of narcotics), not trafficking. The sentence remains unchanged as the penalty for storage is equivalent to trafficking under the law.
Source excerpt
- Drug offences
- Possession of narcotics
- Trafficking
- Sentencing
- Appeal procedure
UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUTABAZI
The Court of Appeal held that Mutabazi Djamali’s 16-year sentence for defiling a 6-year-old child would not be further reduced, dismissing his appeal.
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Sexual offences against children
- Appeals
- Mitigating-circumstances
- Sexual-offences-against-children
Explore more