UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAYISHIMIYE

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAYISHIMIYE

The Court held that the birth certificate filed on 16/01/2026, showing that U.F. was born on 31/12/2003 and matching the identity card, was the proper document to determine age. Since the offence occurred in July 2018, U.F. was 15 years old and therefore a child under Article 2(8°) of Law No. 68/2018. Accordingly,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: UBUSHINJACYAHA; Respondent/appellant: Ndayishimiye Sumayire Madiba
Jurisdiction
Rwanda
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as to conviction; prior judgment varied as to sentence
Legal Topics
Defilement of a Child, Proof of Age of the Victim, Contradictory Identity Documents, Mistake as to the Victim's Age, Sentencing Reduction
Source Language
rw
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Defilement of a Child Proof of Age of the Victim Contradictory Identity Documents Mistake as to the Victim's Age Sentencing Reduction

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UBUSHINJACYAHA

Appellant/respondent

Ndayishimiye Sumayire Madiba

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before the Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether U.F. was a child at the time of the offence despite contradictory documents on date of birth
  2. 2 Which document should be relied on to determine the victim's age
  3. 3 Whether mistake as to the victim's age can excuse liability for defilement of a child

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the birth certificate filed on 16/01/2026, showing that U.F. was born on 31/12/2003 and matching the identity card, was the proper document to determine age. Since the offence occurred in July 2018, U.F. was 15 years old and therefore a child under Article 2(8°) of Law No. 68/2018. Accordingly, the conviction was upheld, and the appellant could not rely on alleged mistake as to age; however, the sentence was reduced in light of sentencing parity and mitigation considerations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as to conviction; prior judgment varied as to sentence

Orders

  • Ndayishimiye Sumayire Madiba's appeal was found to be without merit.
  • Judgment No. RPA 01355/2019/HC/KIG of 20/01/2022 was varied on sentence.