Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NIYONSABA ALIAS KING FIRE N’UNDI.

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00416/2024/CA

The appeal was dismissed because the scientific and testimonial evidence, including DNA analysis and witness statements, conclusively established the appellant's guilt. The appellant's new arguments were raised for the first time on second appeal and lacked evidentiary support. The compensation awarded by lower courts was upheld, with a minor adjustment to legal fees.

Source excerpt

• Sexual offences against minors
• Evidentiary standards
• Appeal procedure
• Compensation for victims

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs HAFASHIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00856/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that a 15-year sentence for defiling a child under 14 could not be reduced further, and dismissed Hafashimana François’s appeal.

• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Sexual offences against children
• Appeals
• Criminal-sentencing
• Mitigating-circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TWAGIRIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/REV/RP 00061/2024/CA

__CONTENT_FILTERED__

Source excerpt

• Content Filtered

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TWAGIRIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/REV/RP 00061/2024/CA

The application for review is inadmissible because the judgment sought to be reviewed (RPAA 00110/2018/CA) was not decided on the merits by the Court of Appeal, but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; only the High Court judgment (RPA 00519/2017/HC/NYZ) was decided on the merits and could be subject to review.

Source excerpt

• Review of criminal judgments
• New evidence
• Jurisdiction
• Procedural requirements

Read case analysis

BANK OF KIGALI PLC v. NKUNDIMANA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00083/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed Bank of Kigali Plc’s appeal, holding the bank failed to prove an outstanding debt and upheld the finding that the loan had been repaid.

• Burden of proof
• Loan repayment
• Evidence law
• Appeals
• Contract enforcement
• Burden-of-proof

Read case analysis

EASTINCO LTD v. Daniel Lee HOGAN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00041/2024/CA

By choosing to litigate in court and not raising the arbitration clause as a jurisdictional objection, both parties tacitly amended their contract and waived the right to arbitration. Therefore, the lower courts had jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction of courts
• Arbitration clauses
• Waiver of arbitration
• Conflict of interest
• Enforcement of contracts

Read case analysis

GAMECO Ltd vs MUKABIDERI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00011/2024/SC

The Supreme Court dismissed GAMECO Ltd’s review application and upheld liability for compensation to Mukabideri Cécile arising from a workplace-related accident.

• Vicarious liability
• Compensation for injury
• Subcontracting liability
• Enforcement of contractual obligations
• Vicarious-liability
• Subcontracting-liability

Read case analysis

KENNY BUSINESS GROUP LTD v. BAKHRESA GRAIN MILLING RWANDA LTD

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00012/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed Kenny Business Group Ltd’s appeal for non-appearance after repeated adjournments, finding no continued interest in pursuing the case.

• Dismissal for want of prosecution
• Loan repayment
• Guarantee enforcement
• Interest on debt
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

RLR V. 2- 2025

Court

Supreme Court

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it lawfully confers jurisdiction on the court where contempt occurs and does not violate the right to appear before a competent court or the principle against self-judging. However, paragraph two of Article 81, which allows immediate punishment for contempt of court without informing the accused of the charges or allowing defence and legal representation, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court ordered that Article 81 be supplemented to require that the accused be informed o…

Source excerpt

• Due process of law
• Contempt of court
• Presumption of innocence
• Right to appeal
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NGIRIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/RECT/RP00003/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal refused to admit an application to correct a prior criminal judgment, holding that only parties to the original case may seek correction.

• Correction of judgments
• Identity fraud
• Standing to sue
• Correction-of-judgments
• Standing-to-sue
• Criminal-procedure

Read case analysis