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 held that the guilty pleas were neither unequivocal nor timely, and appellants had already received reduced sentences based on mitigating circumstances. Further reduction was not warranted under the law, and statutory fines must remain.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld Gato Emmanuel’s murder conviction and 15-year sentence, finding the weapon and place of injury showed intent to kill.
The Supreme Court held there was no contradiction between a 2009 Abunzi decision and a 2013 Gasabo Intermediate Court judgment, and dismissed Muberandinda’s claim.
Compensation for the fatal accident is governed by the workmen compensation insurance agreement between CRBC Ltd and SANLAM AG Plc, not by the compulsory motor vehicle insurance or tort liability. The applicants already received the due compensation under this scheme, and are not entitled to further compensation or damages.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that compensation for a fatal workplace accident in a company vehicle was governed by workmen compensation insurance, not general motor vehicle insurance.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review-for-injustice request, upholding findings that the employer unlawfully terminated the employee and owed damages and costs.
The High Court held that Nahimana’s demolished property was not conclusively shown to be in a wetland registry area and awarded compensation, distress damages, and partial costs.
The Court of Appeal found that GAPCO lost in both lower courts on the same essential ground: failure to prove legal ownership of the disputed land. Both courts determined that GAPCO's evidence (Acte de notoriété, administrative certificates) did not establish a valid transfer or registration of title. As the legal and factual issues were the same in both lower courts, the appeal was inadmissible under Article 52(3) of Law No 30/2018. The Court of Appeal therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Source excerpt
SANLAM AG Plc did not provide conclusive evidence that the fire was caused by EUCL Ltd's conduct. The technical and factual record did not establish, without doubt, that EUCL Ltd's wiring was the source of the fire. Therefore, MUA Insurance Rwanda Ltd, as EUCL Ltd's insurer, is not liable for the sums previously awarded. Restitution of amounts paid is ordered.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal rejected a review-for-injustice request, upheld prior rulings, and found the employer unlawfully dismissed the employee without following required procedures.
Explore more
