Rwanda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Rwanda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 3 court collections
Last checked: 10 Oct 2026, 05:20 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Topic

Legal area

Court

Rwanda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

30 Jul 2022

Constitutional law

RLR V. 2 - 2022

Court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors only does not violate the Constitution or international conventions. The Court found that the right to life and health is protected by ensuring abortion is performed by qualified doctors, and that the restriction is justified by safety concerns. The Court determined there was no evidence of discrimination or violation of privacy, as the law applies equally and confidentiality is protected by other statutes. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Source excerpt

Abortion
Right to life
Right to health
Equality before the law
Non-discrimination
Right to privacy

Read case analysis

24 Dec 2021

Constitutional law RLR V.2 - 2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court: Supreme Court
Case number: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international human rights obligations. The limitation is justified by the need to ensure patient safety and quality of care. There is no unlawful discrimination or violation of equality, as the law applies equally and is based on objective medical criteria. The right to privacy is not infringed, as confidentiality is protected by law. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Source excerpt

Abortion
Right to health
Right to life
Equality before the law
Non-discrimination
Privacy

Read case analysis

24 Dec 2021

Constitutional law RLR V.2 - 2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court: Supreme Court
Case number: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors in hospitals is a measure aimed at protecting the right to life and health, given the risks associated with abortion procedures and the need for specialized skills and equipment. The Court found no evidence that the law violates the rights to equality, non-discrimination, physical and mental integrity, or privacy, as the differentiation is based on objective medical considerations and confidentiality is protected by law. Policy decisions regarding the decentralization of abortion services are within the competence of…

Source excerpt

Abortion
Right to life
Right to health
Right to equality
Non-discrimination
Right to privacy

Read case analysis

24 Dec 2021

Constitutional law RLR V.2-2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court: Supreme Court
Case number: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Court held that restricting legal abortion to recognized medical doctors is a legislative policy aimed at protecting the right to life and health, does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, equality, non-discrimination, physical and mental integrity, or privacy, and is not inconsistent with Rwanda's constitutional or international obligations. The Court found no evidence of discrimination or violation of privacy and determined that expanding abortion providers is a policy matter, not a constitutional issue.

Source excerpt

Abortion
Right to life
Right to health
Right to equality
Non-discrimination
Right to privacy

Read case analysis

24 Dec 2021

Constitutional law RLR V.2-2022

Re_GLIHD

Court: Supreme Court
Case number: S/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

Restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors does not violate constitutional rights to life, health, bodily integrity, equality, non-discrimination, or privacy. The restriction is justified by medical safety and does not constitute discrimination or infringement of privacy. The challenged provisions are consistent with the Constitution and international obligations.

Source excerpt

Abortion
Right to health
Right to life
Non-discrimination
Privacy
Bodily integrity

Read case analysis

24 Oct 2021

Constitutional law RLR V.2-2022

Re GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (GLIHD)

Court: Supreme Court
Case number: RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that restricting abortion services to state-approved medical doctors at hospitals does not violate the Constitution or international law. The restriction is justified by the need to ensure safe procedures and protect the health and life of women and girls. The law does not create unconstitutional discrimination or inequality, as the requirements are based on objective medical considerations and apply equally. Privacy and confidentiality are protected by existing laws. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Source excerpt

Abortion
Right to health
Right to life
Equality before the law
Non-discrimination
Privacy

Read case analysis

11 Sept 2020

Family law RLR V.2 -2021

Re. N.A ET AL

Court: Intermediate Court
Case number: RCA 00161/2020/TGI/NYGE

Gestational surrogacy is permitted under Rwandan law as a form of medically assisted reproduction, provided there is mutual consent. The surrogacy contract between the parties is enforceable. The child born through surrogacy must be registered as the child of the genetic parents (N.A and M.O) but should live with the surrogate mother (M.G) for six months to be breastfed, in line with the child's best interests.

Source excerpt

Assisted reproductive technology
Gestational surrogacy
Child registration
Parental rights
Breastfeeding rights

Read case analysis

11 Sept 2020

Family law RLR V.2-2021

Re. N.A ET AL

Court: Intermediate Court
Case number: RCA 00161/2020/TGI/NYGE

Gestational surrogacy is a form of assisted reproductive technology recognized by Rwandan law. The agreement between the parties is valid and enforceable. The child born through this process must be registered under the names of the genetic parents (N.A and M.O) but should remain with the surrogate mother (M.G) for six months post-birth for breastfeeding, unless medically impossible. The lower court erred in restricting the scope of assisted reproduction to exclude surrogacy.

Source excerpt