Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. SULULU MARUGIRA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00248/2021/CA

The tools carried by the accused (scie à métaux and fer à béton) qualify as weapons under the relevant criminal statutes, making the offense aggravated robbery. However, considering their first-time offender status, remorse, lack of significant harm, and their young age, the sentence should be reduced to eight years' imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwandan francs each.

Source excerpt

• Armed robbery
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Interpretation of 'weapon' in robbery
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. DUSENGIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00725/2024/CA

The evidence, including the appellant's own admissions and corroborating witness testimony, established that Dusengimana Valens trafficked cannabis by transporting it from Congo to Rwanda. The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 RWF, already reduced for mitigating circumstances, is the minimum permitted by law and cannot be further reduced or suspended.

Source excerpt

• Drug trafficking
• Sentencing
• Appeal procedure
• Mitigating circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDUNGUTSE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00762/2024/CA

The court found that Ndungutse Djihad's confession, corroborated by witness testimony and physical evidence, established his guilt for both consumption and trafficking of cannabis. The request to reclassify the offence was unsupported by contrary evidence. The minimum sentence prescribed by law applies and cannot be further reduced.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Appeal procedure
• Sentencing
• Evidentiary value of confessions

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NKUNDABAGENZI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00824/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that mitigating circumstances do not automatically require sentence reduction and upheld a life sentence for murder.

• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Murder
• Appeal procedure
• Criminal-law
• Mitigating-circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HABYARIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA/ECON 00003/2022/CA

The second appeal was inadmissible because the alleged errors related to non-compliance with legal provisions, not the application of a non-existent law. Such errors do not justify a second appeal under Rwandan law. The lower courts applied the law in force at the time of the offence, and any procedural irregularities should be addressed through other legal remedies, not a second appeal.

Source excerpt

• Embezzlement
• Application of repealed law
• Admissibility of second appeal
• Mitigation of penalty
• Procedural irregularities

Read case analysis

TUMWESIGE vs EAR DIOCÈSE DE BYUMBA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00008/2023/CA

The USD 200,000,000 advanced by IHS Mauritius Rwanda Ltd to IHS Rwanda Ltd did not meet the legal requirements of a loan—lacking interest, security, and a clear repayment schedule—and thus constituted equity, not debt. Consequently, foreign exchange losses claimed on this amount were not deductible. Depreciation on tower components (batteries, cables, lights) was correctly calculated at 10% as they are part of telecom assets with a lifespan over 10 years, and IHS Rwanda Ltd failed to prove otherwise. The 2015 loss of 4,369,743,840 Frw was not properly appealed to the Commissioner General and…

Source excerpt

• Corporate taxation
• Foreign exchange losses
• Depreciation of assets
• Related party transactions
• Administrative appeals
• Procedural law

Read case analysis

ENTREPRISE D’ADDUCTION D’EAU ET DE CONSTRUCTION (EADECO) v. AKARERE KA GATSIBO

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00053/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that EADECO breached the contract by delaying the works, upheld termination by Akarere ka Gatsibo, and dismissed EADECO’s claims.

• Breach of contract
• Termination of contract
• Public procurement disputes
• Damages and compensation
• Procedural law
• Breach-of-contract

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. IRANKUNDA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00487/2024/CA

The Court found that Irankunda Samson's actions, including being apprehended with 6,000 cannabis wraps, admissions, and corroborating witness testimony, established his guilt for trafficking/possession with intent to distribute narcotics, not merely facilitation. The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 RWF, already reduced for mitigating circumstances, was the minimum allowed by law and could not be further reduced.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Appeal procedure
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJABYAHA v. NDUNGUTSE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00728/2024/CA

The appellate court found that the lower court had lawfully exercised its discretion and applied the correct legal provisions in reducing Ndungutse's sentence to the statutory minimum of 15 years, and that no further reduction was legally possible.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Appeals
• Mitigating circumstances
• Sexual offences
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

SANLAM AG Plc v BIZIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00005/2024/SC

SANLAM AG Plc is liable for damages because it failed to prove that the insured (driver) committed an intentional fault with the intent to cause harm. The mere fact of knowingly committing a prohibited act does not constitute intentional fault unless intent to cause harm is established. The injured party’s fault does not bar compensation unless it is the sole cause of the accident or was committed with intent to cause self-harm. Comparative fault may reduce but not exclude damages unless the injured party’s fault is total or intentional. The previous precedent (Kirehe District v SAHAM Assuran…

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle accident liability
• Damages
• Insurance coverage for intentional fault
• Comparative and contributory negligence
• Strict liability

Read case analysis