Rwanda Case Law

MURWANASHYAKA v BAMU TRADE COMPANY Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00013/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that the loan agreement provided for a lump-sum late payment interest of 300,000 Frw, not a monthly interest, and that further interest should be calculated at the statutory average lending rate from the date of default to the date of judgment. There was no evidence of shareholder fraud or misuse of company assets, so shareholders could not be held jointly liable. Damages and legal costs were only partially awarded based on the outcome.

Source excerpt

• Loan agreements
• Interest calculation
• Corporate veil
• Shareholder liability
• Damages
• Procedural review

Read case analysis

Mudenge Et. Al

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2022/SC

Mudenge Emmanuel is guilty of tax evasion using false invoices as per Article 87 Law No 026/2019; administrative penalties and payment do not extinguish criminal liability. He is not guilty of making or using false documents (Power of Attorney) nor fraudulent acquisition or use of administrative documents, as the agreements are bilateral and not administrative documents under Article 277. Kayitana Innocent is not guilty as the agreements do not constitute the documents contemplated by the penal statute.

Source excerpt

• Tax evasion
• Use of false documents
• Fraudulent acquisition of administrative documents
• Corporate criminal liability

Read case analysis

HORIZON SOPYRWA v YANKUNDIYE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00023/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that an acte de notoriété signed by a sector executive secretary was not valid proof of land ownership, and restored parcel No. 1200 to HORIZON SOPYRWA Ltd.

• Land ownership
• Company asset transfer
• Privatization
• Land registration
• Burden of proof
• Retrial on injustice grounds

Read case analysis

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RWANDA (BRD) N’ ABANDI v. NYIRANDIHANO N’ ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00041-00042- 00043/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal held BRD was only a witness to the share sale agreement, not a bound party, and set aside monetary awards against it.

• Shareholder agreements
• Sale of shares
• Corporate liability
• Privatization
• Procedural law
• Damages

Read case analysis

RUSHOMINTWALI v. MUNYANGANZO N’UNDI_kn

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RSOCAA0002/15/CS

The Supreme Court held that a company summoned only to give information is not treated as a party, so a shareholder was not barred from intervening.

• Standing to intervene
• Corporate representation in litigation
• Shareholder rights
• Labour contract termination
• Damages for unfair dismissal
• Standing-to-intervene

Read case analysis

UWERA SAUDA v. BPR Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0117/12/CS

The Supreme Court held that BPR Ltd retained standing to recover a loan made when it was BPR S.A., and dismissed the appeal.

• Corporate succession
• Loan agreements
• Standing to sue
• Interest on late payments
• Corporate-succession
• Standing-to-sue

Read case analysis

RWANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY v. TOTAL RWANDA SARL/ENGEN RWANDA Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0027/12/CS

The Supreme Court held that the transaction was a share transfer, not a sale of company property, so RRA failed to prove a taxable property sale.

• Taxation of share transfers
• Corporate personality
• Distinction between share and asset sales
• Value added tax (vat) liability
• Corporate veil
• Burden of proof in tax disputes

Read case analysis

IKIGO CY’IMISORO N’AMAHORO v. TOTAL RWANDA SARL/ENGEN RWANDA Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0027/12/CS

The Supreme Court held that the transaction was a share sale, not a sale of company assets, so RRA failed to prove a taxable asset transfer.

• Share sale vs asset sale
• Corporate personality
• Taxation of share transfers
• Value added tax (vat)
• Corporate veil
• Burden of proof in tax disputes

Read case analysis

Amsar v. Rwanda Revenue Authority

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOM A 0056/10/CS

The Supreme Court of Rwanda upheld a tax decision against Amsar, holding that a debit-note expense paid in later years could not reduce 2003 profit and generator depreciation was not deductible.

• Corporate income tax
• Depreciation
• Deductible expenses
• Independence of financial years
• Evidence in taxation
• Corporate-income-tax

Read case analysis