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 held that, following the amended law, the sentence of 15 years imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 Frw is the statutory minimum for the offence of trafficking in cannabis, and cannot be further reduced or suspended. The appellant's circumstances and cited precedents do not override the clear statutory requirements.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal reduced Turikubwigenge Lucien’s sentence for cannabis trafficking, finding the lower court failed to consider first-time offender status and the small quantity seized.
The Court of Appeal reduced Sezibera Aloys’s sentence for cannabis trafficking, finding first-time offending and sentencing parity justified further mitigation.
The Court of Appeal held that the minimum reduced sentence for cannabis trafficking with mitigating circumstances is 15 years and a 5,000,000 RWF fine.
Admitting guilt at the appellate stage does not entitle the defendant to further mitigation, especially where the trial court already reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 25 years and a fine, reflecting the gravity of the offence and first-time status; the appellate court's role is to correct errors, not to entertain new mitigating arguments.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Nyandwi Jean de Dieu’s sentence had already been reduced to the statutory minimum and could not be reduced further.
The Supreme Court held that hearsay evidence from MUHAWENIMANA Sabine was inadmissible as it was not based on her direct knowledge but on information from the accused. The Court found that NTAGANIRA Samuel provided material assistance by locking the victim and principal offender together, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime. The revision application was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court were upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, including witness statements and call history, did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Tuyizere Evode committed the murder. Technical evidence showed that cell tower usage did not necessarily indicate movement, and no direct evidence or credible circumstantial evidence linked the accused to the crime. The benefit of the doubt was given to the accused, resulting in acquittal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tuyizere Evode committed murder, quashed the conviction, and ordered his release.
Explore more
