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 held that the defendant deserved a further sentence reduction for admitting guilt and remorse, lowering the sentence from 25 to 20 years.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mbanzabugabo Jean’s appeal, holding that his sentence for cannabis trafficking had already been sufficiently reduced in light of mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeal reduced a sentence for attempted murder, but refused mitigation based on a first-time guilty plea made only on appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that Renzaho Ismael's sentence of 15 years' imprisonment for defilement was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offence and its consequences. The court found no error or abuse of discretion by the lower courts, and no new mitigating factors justifying further reduction. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court recharacterized the offence from bribery to fraudulently obtaining another’s property, reduced the sentence to three years, and ordered release.
The Court of Appeal upheld a conviction for cannabis trafficking, finding the quantity and investigative confession showed intent to sell. It reduced only the fine.
The appellate court found that the sentence imposed by the High Court (15 years imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 RWF) was the minimum permitted under the current law (Law No. 059/2023), and that the legal basis for further reduction, previously available under Law No. 68/2018, had been repealed. No error or abuse of discretion by the lower court was established. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit and the sentence was upheld.
Source excerpt
The appeal was timely as submission through the prison legal officer within the statutory period is valid; however, Nsengiyumva Edouard had already received the minimum sentence permitted by law for the offense, and no further reduction or suspension was legally possible. The trial court did not misuse the law or its discretion.
Source excerpt
Both Mabuye Joséph and Musekera Emmanuel, having signed as joint sureties for the COIMEX Ltd loan, are jointly and equally liable for the outstanding debt of 65,296,272 Frw to GT Bank Rwanda Plc, including interest calculated up to the legal maximum. The release of collateral or partial payment by one surety does not extinguish joint liability until the entire debt is repaid. Claims for reimbursement of alleged overpayments and damages by the sureties lack merit as the outstanding debt remains. GT Bank Rwanda Plc is entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate the Constitution. It found that the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination does not require identical penalties for different offences, especially when the nature and impact of the offences differ. The Court determined that the gravity of child defilement and its profound impact on victims and society justify severe penalties, and that such penalties are proportionate and consistent with international standards. The Court further held that due process is not violated, as the law allows for judicial discretion in…
Source excerpt
Explore more
