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 Tuyishime Samuel lacked standing to seek resolution of conflicting judgments over family property while his mother remained alive.
The Supreme Court dismissed a review application challenging an arbitral award, holding that claim amendments and additional evidence were permitted and that no procedural violation justified annulment.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal by Umujyi wa Kigali was inadmissible because the appellant lost in both lower courts on the same legal grounds, specifically regarding the respondent's entitlement to compensation for expropriation. Both lower courts applied the same legal reasoning and found for the respondent, thus Article 52(3) of Law No. 30/2018 barred a second appeal. The court also confirmed the respondent's entitlement to costs and attorney fees at this level.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Tuyishime Samuel lacked standing to challenge conflicting judgments over his late father’s property while the surviving spouse remained alive.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the applicant lost in both lower courts on the same grounds, and awarded costs to Bayingana.
The court found that the employer failed to comply with the mandatory 48-hour notification period after discovering the alleged serious misconduct, and that the disciplinary committee had only recommended a temporary suspension, not dismissal. The employer’s subsequent termination of the contract was therefore procedurally unlawful. Compensation was awarded based on six months’ net salary, and the applicant was also entitled to the 2021 bonus, legal fees, and reimbursement of court fees.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Rwanda held that a claim filed against deceased respondents is inadmissible and cannot be examined on the merits.
The Supreme Court held that a claim filed against persons already deceased is inadmissible because deceased persons lack legal personality and cannot lawfully be sued.
The Court of Appeal upheld Kayitare Jacques’s conviction for attempted murder, found the evidence sufficient, but reduced the sentence to 12 years and 6 months.
The appeal lacked merit as the evidence, including witness statements, medical reports, and circumstantial facts, sufficiently established Kayitare Jacques's involvement in the attempted murder. However, considering mitigating circumstances (no prior convictions, no serious consequences), the sentence was reduced to twelve years and six months imprisonment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
