PROSECUTION v NSANGIRANABO

PROSECUTION v NSANGIRANABO

Nsangiranabo Raphaël should not be penalized for administrative failures by prison authorities in notifying him of the judgment and recording the date of receipt of his appeal; his appeal is deemed to have been filed within the statutory period and is therefore admissible.

Citation
RLR V.1-2016
Parties
Applicant: Prosecution; Respondent: Nsangiranabo Raphaël
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
5 September 2015
Case Number
RPAA 0221/10/CS
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Review of Case Screening Order
Outcome
Appeal granted; case screening order quashed; court fees to public fund.
Legal Topics
Appeal Timelines, Notification of Judgment, Rights of Detained Appellants
Source Language
en, rw
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Appeal Timelines Notification of Judgment Rights of Detained Appellants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosecution

Applicant

Nsangiranabo Raphaël

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Review of Case Screening Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal filed by Nsangiranabo Raphaël was within the prescribed time limit under the law
  2. 2 Whether administrative failures by prison authorities can prejudice an appellant's right to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Nsangiranabo Raphaël should not be penalized for administrative failures by prison authorities in notifying him of the judgment and recording the date of receipt of his appeal; his appeal is deemed to have been filed within the statutory period and is therefore admissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal granted; case screening order quashed; court fees to public fund.

Orders

  • Receives appeal filed by Nsangiranabo Raphaël against case screening order n° RP 0168/10/Pré-ex/CS of June 1, 2010
  • Decides that appeal is substantiated