UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUTABAZI

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUTABAZI

The Court of Appeal found that credible evidence, including witness statements and the quantity of cannabis (74 packets), established Mutabazi's intent and readiness to sell, satisfying the legal definition of drug trafficking. The absence of a direct sale or identified buyer was not necessary for conviction. The appeal lacked merit and the High Court's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Citation
RPAA 00394/2025/CA
Parties
Prosecution: Ubushinjacyaha; Appellant/accused: Mutabazi Augustin
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Judgment Date
21 November 2025
Case Number
RPAA 00394/2025/CA
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Evidentiary Standards in Criminal Cases, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Evidentiary Standards in Criminal Cases Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubushinjacyaha

Prosecution

Mutabazi Augustin

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in convicting Mutabazi Augustin of drug trafficking instead of mere possession of narcotics

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that credible evidence, including witness statements and the quantity of cannabis (74 packets), established Mutabazi's intent and readiness to sell, satisfying the legal definition of drug trafficking. The absence of a direct sale or identified buyer was not necessary for conviction. The appeal lacked merit and the High Court's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal by Mutabazi Augustin is dismissed as unfounded.
  • The High Court judgment of 19/03/2025 (RPA 00216/2022/HC/KIG) remains unchanged.