UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TWAGIRIMANA

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. TWAGIRIMANA

The application for review is inadmissible because the judgment sought to be reviewed (RPAA 00110/2018/CA) was not decided on the merits by the Court of Appeal, but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; only the High Court judgment (RPA 00519/2017/HC/NYZ) was decided on the merits and could be subject to review.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RS/REV/RP 00061/2024/CA
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Defendant: Twagirimana Philémon
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Case Number
RS/REV/RP 00061/2024/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Application for Review Based on New Evidence
Outcome
application dismissed as inadmissible
Legal Topics
Review of Criminal Judgments, New Evidence, Jurisdiction, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Review of Criminal Judgments New Evidence Jurisdiction Procedural Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Twagirimana Philémon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Application for Review Based on New Evidence

  1. 1 Whether the application for review based on new evidence is admissible when the judgment sought to be reviewed was not decided on the merits by the last court.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review is inadmissible because the judgment sought to be reviewed (RPAA 00110/2018/CA) was not decided on the merits by the Court of Appeal, but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; only the High Court judgment (RPA 00519/2017/HC/NYZ) was decided on the merits and could be subject to review.

Court Disposition

application dismissed as inadmissible

Orders

  • Twagirimana Philémon is exempted from court fees due to incarceration.