Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAHONDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00398/2023/CA

The defendant's admission of guilt in appeal is untimely and does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance under Article 59 of Law No 68/2018. However, as a first-time offender found with a small quantity of drugs, valid mitigating circumstances exist. Pursuant to Article 2(a) and (d) of Law No 059/2023, the sentence is reduced to 16 years imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 RWF, aligning with proportionality and precedent.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Mitigating circumstances
• Plea of guilty
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRANDIMUBANZI N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00224/2024/CA

The Court held that Nyirandimubanzi had already received the minimum sentence permitted by law for aggravated drug trafficking, and no further reduction was legally possible. For Hakizimana, the evidence, including co-accused testimony and physical seizure of drugs, supported conviction for trafficking, not mere possession. The only modification was reduction of Nyirandimubanzi's fine due to her cooperation and the small quantity involved.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Appeal procedure
• Mitigating circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs HAKIZIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00265/2023/CA

The appellate court found that the evidence relied upon by the lower courts—including the victim's testimony, corroborating witness statements, and the medical report—was consistent and credible. The appellant's alibi was not sufficiently substantiated, and discrepancies in timing or minor inconsistencies in witness accounts did not undermine the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Source excerpt

• Defilement of a minor
• Alibi defence
• Evidentiary standards
• Assessment of witness credibility
• Medical evidence in sexual offences

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v HITIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUSȚ/RP 00002/2023/CA

__CONTENT_FILTERED__

Source excerpt

• Content Filtered

Read case analysis

IMIRONGO CoA - No 25 - March 2025

Court

Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal digest consolidating precedents on guilty pleas, confession evidence, appellate sentencing, proof, and procedural requirements.

• Plea of guilt and its effect
• Appeals procedure
• Sentencing and mitigation
• Evidence assessment
• Drug offences
• Homicide and bodily harm

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NSENGIYUMVA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00389/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal acquitted Nsengiyumva Sam, finding the evidence insufficient and contradictory to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt.

• Standard of proof
• Sexual offences against minors
• Assessment of evidence
• Presumption of innocence
• Appeals
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NTAKIRUTIMANA ALIAS BEBI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA01014/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence against Ntakirutimana alias Bebi did not prove child defilement beyond reasonable doubt and ordered his acquittal.

• Burden of proof
• Standard of proof
• Sexual offences
• Child protection
• Appeals
• Evidence assessment

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYIRAMARIRO

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00316/2024/CA

The appeal was dismissed because the conviction for trafficking and selling narcotics was supported by evidence, and the sentence had already been reduced to the statutory minimum in light of mitigating factors; no further reduction was warranted as the lower court made no error and the seriousness of the offence justified the penalty imposed.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Appeals

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NTAKIRUTIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 01014/2024/CA

The minimum sentence for trafficking in narcotic drugs punishable by life imprisonment, even with mitigating circumstances, is 15 years' imprisonment and a fine not less than a quarter of the minimum prescribed. The appellant's sentence, already reduced to this minimum, cannot be further reduced or the fine waived under the current law.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

KALISA N’UNDI v. MODERN TRUCKERS Ltd N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00060/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal accepted the appellants’ withdrawal of a commercial appeal with the respondent’s consent and awarded 500,000 Frw in attorney fees.

• Withdrawal of suit
• Legal costs
• Parties to commercial contracts
• Withdrawal-of-suit
• Legal-costs
• Commercial-procedure

Read case analysis