SINDAYIGAYA v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

SINDAYIGAYA v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

The court held that the search and seizure were lawful under Article 65 since the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, and that the quantity and circumstances of the drugs, along with corroborating witness testimony and the appellant's own admissions, justified conviction for drug trafficking and consumption....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RPAA 00275/2025/CA
Parties
Appellant: Sindayigaya Eric; Respondent: Ubushinjacyaha
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
28 October 2025
Case Number
RPAA 00275/2025/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Drug Offences, Search and Seizure, Sentencing, Appeals
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Drug Offences Search and Seizure Sentencing Appeals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sindayigaya Eric

Appellant

Ubushinjacyaha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the search and seizure of drugs was lawful under Rwandan criminal procedure law
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supported conviction for drug trafficking rather than mere possession or consumption

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the search and seizure were lawful under Article 65 since the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, and that the quantity and circumstances of the drugs, along with corroborating witness testimony and the appellant's own admissions, justified conviction for drug trafficking and consumption. The appeal was dismissed and the lower court's sentence upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • The appeal of Sindayigaya Eric is dismissed as unfounded.
  • The judgment of the High Court (RPA 00920/2021/HC/NYZ) is affirmed in all respects.