Rwanda Case Law

AYINKAMIYE v. KASINE N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCAA 00032/2024/CA

The court found that the land certificate for UPI:1/03/02/04/301 registered to AYINKAMIYE Denys and NTAMAKIRIRO Eugenie was obtained without legal basis, as the applicant failed to prove the origin of the land. The acts of notoriety presented did not meet the legal requirements and were invalid. Testimonies from the majority of siblings confirmed the land belonged to MUKANGENZI Clémence and RUKIRA Isidore. Therefore, the property does not form part of the estate to be inherited. Claims by MUJAWIMANA Perpetue were inadmissible as they were raised for the first time on appeal. Monetary claims a…

Source excerpt

• Land registration
• Burden of proof
• Validity of land title
• Inheritance rights
• Acts of notoriety
• Distribution of estate

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00492/2023/CA CMB- RPAA 00511/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed criminal appeals and upheld life sentences for three appellants convicted of murder and intentional assault.

• Murder
• Assault
• Joint criminal enterprise
• Admissibility of witness testimony
• Burden of proof
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NIYOMWUNGERI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00473/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for defilement of a minor, held that the medical report was not conclusive on its own, and reduced the sentence to 20 years.

• Defilement of a minor
• Assessment of evidence
• Appeal procedure
• Sentencing
• Defilement-of-a-minor
• Criminal-appeals

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs NGARUKIYIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00348/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld a defilement conviction, holding that a police confession remained reliable when corroborated by witness statements and medical evidence.

• Sexual offences
• Evidence law
• Confession admissibility
• Appeals procedure
• Criminal-law
• Sexual-offences

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NYABYENDA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00330/2024/CA

The appeal for further reduction of sentence is denied because the High Court already reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum for attempted murder, and the gravity and circumstances of the offence do not justify further mitigation.

Source excerpt

• Attempted murder
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v IRADUKUNDA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00184/2021/CA-CMB RPAA 00185/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences of Iradukunda Pacifique and Hagenimana Alexis Alias Nyinya to 12 years and 6 months each, finding further mitigation was justified.

• Sentencing
• Appeal
• Mitigating circumstances
• Attempted murder
• Armed robbery
• Criminal-sentencing

Read case analysis

FODECO vs THAUGHTS ARE THINGS CO (TATCO) LTD N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/ RCOM 00014/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal held that TATCO and Kimenyi Jean must refund FODECO the advance and USD 7,000, but rejected claims for lost-profit and distress damages.

• Contract validity
• Breach of contract
• Advance payment
• Damages
• Review for injustice
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NZAMWITAKUZE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00409/2024/CA

__CONTENT_FILTERED__

Source excerpt

• Content Filtered

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUPENZI N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00522/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal found that both appellants jointly participated in the fatal assault, that the testimony of related witnesses was corroborated and credible, that no provocation was established, and that the legal characterization should be murder rather than assault causing death. However, the sentence could not be increased on appeal as the prosecution had not appealed, so the custodial sentence remained but the fine was annulled.

Source excerpt

• Evidence
• Testimony of related witnesses
• Appeals
• Classification of offences
• Causation
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSHIMIYIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00305/2024/CA

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court had already applied the minimum sentence allowed by law after considering the mitigating circumstances, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any error in law or fact in the previous judgment. The request for suspension of the fine was also denied as the custodial sentence exceeded five years, making suspension legally impossible.

Source excerpt

• Drug offences
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis