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 Supreme Court held that Mihigo Bernard lacked direct and personal standing to sue Karongi District for payment based on an unnotified debt assignment from CBS.
Article 39 of Law No 60/2018, which criminalizes the knowing publication of false information via computer systems that may harm a person's reputation, is not inconsistent with Article 38 of the Constitution. The limitation is justified to protect the rights and reputations of others and does not unduly infringe on freedom of expression or media freedom.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld article 39 of Rwanda’s cybercrimes law, holding that criminalizing harmful online rumours does not violate freedom of expression.
The Court of Appeal refused a criminal revision application, holding that the alleged new evidence was not new or decisive under Article 197.
The Court of Appeal reduced Ntahondi Saidi’s sentence for cannabis trafficking to 16 years and a 5,000,000 Frw fine, citing first-offence and small quantity factors.
A permanently disabled accident victim is entitled to economic and career impairment damages under Rwandan law, even if they continue working and earning a salary, provided the disability is permanent and exceeds the statutory threshold. The lower court erred in denying such damages based solely on continued employment.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence relied on to reopen the case was not new and dismissed Habumugisha Hamza’s application for review.
The Court of Appeal held that the workers were casual employees, not permanent staff, but ordered the employer to pay outstanding social security contributions and issue employment certificates.
The Court of Appeal found that Acte de notoriété No 79/86 and similar documents did not meet statutory requirements and thus had no legal value, but this did not affect the outcome because other evidence, including the purchase agreement and consistent testimony of all siblings except the applicant, established that the disputed land (UPI:1/03/02/04/301) belonged to Mukangenzi Clémence and Rukira Isidore, not the parents. The land registration certificate in the parents' names was obtained irregularly and could be set aside. The settlement agreement of 04/05/2024 was binding except for the di…
Source excerpt
Applicants were not permanent employees but casual workers under fixed-term, hourly contracts; no evidence of unlawful dismissal was established; thus, no damages are due. However, the employer must pay any outstanding social security contributions and issue work certificates to applicants who have not received them.
Source excerpt
Explore more
