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 appellant is not entitled to a further reduction of sentence because the High Court already imposed the minimum sentence permitted by law for the offence, considering all mitigating circumstances, and the appellant failed to identify any legal or factual error in the prior judgment.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Mugenzi Elia’s conduct was attempted defilement of a child, not completed defilement, and reduced the sentence to 12 years and 6 months.
The conviction for defilement was upheld based on the victim's consistent testimony, corroborating witness accounts, and a medical report confirming recent sexual trauma, all of which the accused failed to rebut. However, considering the accused's age and first-offender status, the sentence was reduced to ensure proportional justice.
Source excerpt
The conviction was upheld because the evidence from the victim, corroborating witnesses, and the medical report was consistent and sufficient. Minor contradictions did not undermine the core evidence, and the absence of a DNA test was not prejudicial given the circumstances. The appellate court found no basis to disturb the conviction or sentence.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Nizeyimana had already received the minimum sentence allowed by law, so no further reduction was possible. The appeal was dismissed.
The minimum sentence for an offence punishable by life imprisonment, even with mitigating circumstances, is 15 years imprisonment and a fine not less than one quarter of the minimum fine. The High Court had already imposed the minimum possible sentence under the current law, and prior case law allowing further reduction is no longer applicable after the legal amendment.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court annulled a commercial auction for failure to notify the owner and properly publish the notice, ordered restoration of the property, and awarded related compensation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Uwimana Emmanuel’s appeal, holding he had already received sufficient mitigation and could not be further reduced below the statutory minimum.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Sibomana’s appeal, holding he had already received sufficient mitigation and was not entitled to a further sentence reduction.
A guilty plea entered for the first time at the second appellate level does not justify sentence reduction, but the court may reduce the fine based on other mitigating circumstances, such as being a first-time offender.
Source excerpt
Explore more
