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 Court of Appeal dismissed Ntibibuka Olivier’s appeal, upheld the seven-year sentence, and recharacterised the offence as public disorder under Article 204.
The Supreme Court held that career damages require proof of prior employment and injury-related impact on that work, and ordered reimbursement of the award.
The Supreme Court held that career impairment damages require proof of employment or study at the time of the accident. Ndayisaba had not proved a job, so he must refund that award.
The Court of Appeal held that EADECO was not defeated on the same grounds in both lower courts, so its second appeal was admissible.
The Court of Appeal upheld Ntibibuka Olivier’s conviction, finding witness testimony credible and reclassifying the offence under Article 204 rather than Article 194.
The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence of actual dependency on the deceased as required by law. The notarized document and local authority confirmation were insufficient, especially since the parent was of working age and no evidence of incapacity was provided. Consequently, pecuniary damages previously awarded were set aside. The Court also found that certain funeral and related expenses were not necessary or reasonable under the law and reduced the award accordingly.
Source excerpt
The court found that Bank of Kigali Plc failed to provide indisputable evidence that Nkundimana Fidèle and Nyirarugero Dancille owed any outstanding debt under the 2013 loan agreement. The bank's own correspondence and the sequence of payments following the sale of collateral demonstrated that the debt had been fully repaid. The burden of proof was not met by the appellant, and thus the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Discentre Ltd did not prove the full commercial debt claimed against UGHE, reversed the lower judgment, and dismissed the claim.
The Court of Appeal found Discentre Ltd had not proved the disputed debt in full, accepted UGHE’s proof of payment for part of it, and dismissed the claim.
Transport services provided by SRDS Ltd in the course of distributing BRALIRWA products do not qualify as VAT-exempt professional transport under Rwandan law. The transport was ancillary to the principal activity of distribution, which is not VAT-exempt. Therefore, VAT was lawfully assessed on these services.
Source excerpt
Explore more
