Rwanda Case Law

IHS RWANDA LTD vs IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO (RRA)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA00007/2024/CA CMB RCOMAA00008/2024/CA

The USD 200,000,000 advanced by IHS Mauritius Rwanda Ltd to IHS Rwanda Ltd did not meet the legal criteria for a loan (no interest, no security, no repayment schedule) and was therefore equity, not debt. Consequently, foreign exchange losses on this amount were not deductible. Depreciation on tower components (batteries, cables, lights) was properly calculated at 10% as they are telecommunications assets with a lifespan over 10 years. Losses from 2015 were not properly appealed to the Commissioner General and could not be judicially reviewed. IHS Rwanda Ltd was not entitled to costs or attorn…

Source excerpt

• Corporate taxation
• Foreign exchange losses
• Depreciation of assets
• Shareholder loans
• Procedural requirements in tax appeals

Read case analysis

Re MUKANKUNDIYE N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/RECT/RC00001/2024/SC

The Supreme Court found that the previous judgment lacked clarity regarding the total area and identification of the land to be inherited, which created ambiguity and hindered execution. It is necessary to clarify that the total land to be divided among the heirs is 17,022.047925 square meters, as identified by the National Land Authority, and listed by UPI numbers.

Source excerpt

• Interpretation of judgments
• Succession rights
• Division of inheritance
• Clarification of ambiguous judgments

Read case analysis

RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. TUYIGANE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00004/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that Radiant Insurance Company Ltd could not recover compensation paid to an accident victim from the motorcycle owner absent proof of intentional fault.

• Right to recovery action
• Subrogatory action
• Motor vehicle insurance
• Intentional fault exclusion
• Insurance-law
• Motor-vehicle-insurance

Read case analysis

Re BUCYESENGE MENDE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00006/2023/SC

Paragraph 4 of Article 161 of Law No 22/2018 does not violate Articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution. The limitation on third-party opposition to judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is justified by the need for finality in litigation, applies equally to all, and does not deprive individuals of access to justice or property rights, as alternative remedies exist.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Access to justice
• Property rights
• Finality of judgments
• Extraordinary remedies

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TWIZERANE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00181/2024

The Court of Appeal held that a guilty plea first made on appeal does not warrant mitigation, but reduced the sentence to reflect the offence’s gravity.

• Assault resulting in death
• Mitigation of sentence
• Plea of guilty on appeal
• Criminal-law
• Sentencing-mitigation
• Guilty-plea

Read case analysis

Re. BUCYENSENGE MENDE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00006/2023/SC

Article 161, paragraph 4 of Law n0 22/2018 does not contradict articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution, as the distinction between courts is based on legitimate jurisdictional grounds and the principle that judicial proceedings must have an end. The provision does not deprive aggrieved parties of remedies, nor does it violate equality, due process, or property rights.

Source excerpt

• Third party opposition
• Equality before the law
• Right to due process
• Right to private property
• Jurisdiction of courts

Read case analysis

Re BUCYESENGE MENDE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00006/2023/SC

The Supreme Court held that article 161(4) of Law No 22/2018 is constitutional and dismissed the petition challenging limits on third-party opposition.

• Equality before the law
• Access to justice
• Property rights
• Finality of judgments
• Constitutional-law
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v. TUYIGANE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00004/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that the insurer could not recover from the insured the indemnity paid to an accident victim where the accident was caused by a borrower driving the motorcycle while intoxicated.

• Right of recourse
• Subrogation
• Motor vehicle insurance
• Liability for third-party acts
• Contractual interpretation
• Insurance-law

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. INGABIRE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00800/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that a 15-year prison term for cannabis trafficking could not be reduced further, but reduced the fine to RWF 5,000,000.

• Drug trafficking
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Drug-trafficking
• Mitigating-circumstances
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABUMUREMYI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00792/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the 15-year prison term could not be reduced further, but it reduced the fine to 5,000,000 RWF under the amended law.

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure
• Drug-offences
• Mitigating-circumstances

Read case analysis