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 Niyombabazi Anitha’s sentence could not be further reduced because the High Court had already imposed the statutory minimum after mitigation.
The Court of Appeal held that where parties agree on expropriation compensation, no further valuation procedure is required. Ruzibiza’s appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Niyigena Eraste’s appeal, holding that his expropriation compensation claim was filed out of time under Law No. 32/2015.
The Court of Appeal upheld trafficking convictions for Sekamana Isidore and Ahishakiye Balthazard, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting sentence reduction requests.
The Court of Appeal found that while admission of guilt at the appeal stage is not a mitigating factor, the sentence imposed was excessive given the quantity of drugs involved and the fact that Ganishuri was a first-time offender. The sentence was reduced to 17 years' imprisonment and a fine of 8,000,000 Rwandan Francs. Suspension of sentence was denied as the sentence exceeds five years.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear Dr Bwimba's second appeal because he lost in both lower courts on the same grounds. Kabanda's appeal is dismissed for lack of specific grounds. Costs are awarded against Dr Bwimba in favor of the District.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a claim against a public official based on repealed Article 184 of Law No 22/2018 was inadmissible and upheld the objection.
The Court of Appeal held that the 15-day deadline to challenge expropriation valuation ran from the date Niyigena signed the disagreement memorandum, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that since the High Court had already considered all relevant mitigating factors and lawfully reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 25 years, and no misapplication of law or improper exercise of discretion was demonstrated, there was no basis for further reduction. The gravity of the offence, considering the ages of the offender (58) and the victim (3), justified maintaining the sentence.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court reviewed a land dispute for injustice, held that the sold parcel was UPI 2/01/01/04/3894, and ordered correction of the land records.
Explore more
