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 High Court held that a criminal litigant cannot pursue an appeal after already seeking retrial in the same case; the first remedy used bars the other.
The core holding is that the Court of Appeal's precedents from July 2022 to June 2025 establish binding interpretations on jurisdiction, procedure, evidence, remedies, and substantive law across civil, commercial, labour, administrative, insurance, family, tax, and criminal matters. Lower courts and litigants must follow these lines unless overruled or changed by law. Procedural compliance, evidentiary sufficiency, and adherence to statutory and contractual obligations are mandatory. Remedies are limited to those proven and allowed by law. Precedent is binding unless expressly overruled.
Source excerpt
__CONTENT_FILTERED__
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by disregarding credible evidence of a conspiracy among the accused to commit murder, arson, and aggravated assault against Sifa Célestine's family, motivated by ethnic discrimination. The Court held that the pattern of discriminatory acts, corroborated witness statements, and the circumstances of the crime established both the conspiracy and the substantive offenses. The Court also found sufficient evidence that Munyamahoro Innocent and Hitimana Jean de Dieu committed ethnic discrimination. The Court imposed the highest penalty for the most s…
Source excerpt
Kinyogote Cyrille knowingly issued two cheques to Sekamana Gaspard, which were dishonoured due to lack of funds on the due date. The cheques were not valid as security instruments under Rwandan law. The court found that the essential elements of the offence were met, and mitigating factors justified a reduced sentence. Sekamana Gaspard was entitled to damages directly resulting from the dishonoured cheques.
Source excerpt
Kinyogote Cyrille knowingly issued dishonoured cheques to Sekamana Gaspard, which is criminal under Article 373(10) of Organic Law No 01/2012/OL. The cheques cannot be considered as guarantee instruments. Damages are recoverable by Sekamana Gaspard as the criminal offence is established.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld Hitimana Hubert’s conviction and prison sentence, but removed compensation for land purchase losses and left only litigation costs.
The Supreme Court held that Mihigo Bernard lacked direct and personal interest to sue Karongi District over payment tied to CBS’s judgment and dismissed the review application.
Mihigo Bernard did not have a direct and personal interest to sue Akarere ka Karongi because the assignment of debt from CBS was not formally notified or accepted by the debtor, and CBS continued to act as the party with the direct interest in the enforcement of the judgment. Therefore, Mihigo's claim was inadmissible for lack of standing.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Muganda had no shareholder rights in later clinics and must return money paid under the reversed judgment.
Explore more
