UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KWIZERA N’UNDI

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KWIZERA N’UNDI

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants had filed their appeal within time because the judgment copy was made available in IECMS on 05/02/2025, their initial appeal was submitted on 11/02/2025, and the detailed grounds were filed on 19/02/2025. Since the grounds were supplemented within the relevant period...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: UBUSHINJACYAHA; Appellant: KWIZERA David; Appellant: IRADUKUNDA Emmanuel; Indirimbo/damages Claimant: Nirere Jacqueline
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Inadmissibility of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court judgment set aside; file remitted to the High Court for hearing on the merits.
Legal Topics
Late Appeal Grounds, Time Limits for Appeal, Copy of Judgment Delayed, Inadmissibility of Appeal, Effect of Refusing to Receive an Appeal That Should Have Been Received
Source Language
rw
Criminal Procedure Appellate Procedure Late Appeal Grounds Time Limits for Appeal Copy of Judgment Delayed Inadmissibility of Appeal Effect of Refusing to Receive an Appeal That Should Have Been Received

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UBUSHINJACYAHA

Appellant/respondent

KWIZERA David

Appellant

IRADUKUNDA Emmanuel

Appellant

Nirere Jacqueline

Indirimbo/damages Claimant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Inadmissibility of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appeal grounds filed after the appeal period could be received where the appellants obtained the judgment copy late.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should have received the appeal against RP 00438/2024/TGI/NYGE.
  3. 3 What consequence follows when a court refuses an appeal that ought to have been received.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants had filed their appeal within time because the judgment copy was made available in IECMS on 05/02/2025, their initial appeal was submitted on 11/02/2025, and the detailed grounds were filed on 19/02/2025. Since the grounds were supplemented within the relevant period after the copy became available, the High Court should have received the appeal. The High Court decision refusing the appeal was therefore set aside and the file was returned to the High Court for hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court judgment set aside; file remitted to the High Court for hearing on the merits.

Orders

  • Declared the appeal by Iradukunda Emmanuel and Kwizera David well-founded.
  • Held that the appeal filed before the High Court should have been received.