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 dismissed Kochaniewicz Grzegorz’s appeal as late, holding that exequatur proceedings are treated as unilateral applications with a five-working-day appeal period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Masumbuko Venuste’s appeal, holding that the High Court’s interpretation of its earlier judgment clarified the division of school shares without changing the decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mushinzimana Daniel’s request for provisional release, finding no exceptional and compelling reasons to justify release pending review.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mutuyeyezu Valens’s request for provisional release pending appeal, holding that he showed no serious and exceptional grounds.
The court found that the combination of the defendant's confession during investigation, corroborating witness testimony, and physical evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction for defilement of a child. The absence of forensic evidence and the relationship of witnesses to the victim did not undermine the reliability of the evidence. However, considering mitigating circumstances, including the defendant's lack of prior convictions and age, the sentence was reduced to sixteen years' imprisonment.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence from the victim, her mother, grandmother, and the medical report was consistent and sufficient to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt. No credible evidence of family disputes or fabrication was presented. However, the sentence was reduced due to mitigating factors: the accused was a first-time offender and was 18 at the time of the offence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld continued detention of Civ Rwasamanzi Emile, finding the military court had jurisdiction and that exceptional, serious reasons justified detention.
The Court of Appeal held that an uncorroborated confession and doubtful witness evidence were insufficient to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal dismissed FEV Co Ltd’s appeal and upheld the order to refund part of an advance payment in a commercial contract dispute.
The Court of Appeal allowed Twizerimana Théoneste’s appeal, finding the evidence inconsistent and insufficient to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt.
Explore more
