Rwanda Case Law

EDCL v. CP NIYONSABA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00004/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court did not err in relying on the maximum value (36,746 Frw/sqm) from the 2021 Official Gazette as determined by three independent valuers, since the Gazette values were outdated by 2023 and intended for use only for six months. The independent valuation reflected the actual market value at the time of expropriation. The Court also found no procedural error in admitting the valuers' report at the appellate stage. EDCL's appeal was dismissed as unfounded, and the compensation and legal costs awarded by the High Court were upheld.

Source excerpt

• Compensation for expropriation
• Valuation of immovable property
• Judicial review of compensation awards
• Procedural requirements in appeals

Read case analysis

BAYINGANA N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00009/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed an expropriation appeal, holding the claim was filed out of time after a valuation dispute and that the 120-day rule did not apply here.

• Expropriation for public interest
• Compensation for expropriation
• Procedural time limits
• Standing of legal representatives
• Expropriation
• Compensation-for-expropriation

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v BAYINGANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00023/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal by Umujyi wa Kigali was inadmissible because the appellant lost in both lower courts on the same legal grounds, specifically regarding the respondent's entitlement to compensation for expropriation. Both lower courts applied the same legal reasoning and found for the respondent, thus Article 52(3) of Law No. 30/2018 barred a second appeal. The court also confirmed the respondent's entitlement to costs and attorney fees at this level.

Source excerpt

• Appellate jurisdiction
• Expropriation for public interest
• Compensation for expropriation
• Standing to sue
• Court fees and costs

Read case analysis

LETA Y’U RWANDA (MINADEF) vs. ALPHA PALACE Ltd

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00003/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal held that fair compensation in expropriation cases must be based on the market value of the property at the time of compensation, as determined by a balanced assessment of all expert reports. The court found no error in the High Court's reliance on the respondent's valuation for the land and MINADEF's valuation for the building, and upheld the award of costs and legal fees due to MINADEF's conduct and the lack of merit in its appeal.

Source excerpt

• Compensation for expropriation
• Valuation of expropriated property
• Public interest expropriation
• Procedural fairness in compensation
• Costs and legal fees

Read case analysis

LETA Y’U RWANDA (MINADEF) vs. ALPHA PALACE Ltd

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00003/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal held that fair compensation in public interest expropriation must be based on the market value as determined by a balanced assessment of all expert reports, giving weight to the court-appointed experts’ report when neither party successfully challenges it. The government’s appeal was dismissed as it failed to show that the lower court erred in its valuation or in awarding costs and expert fees.

Source excerpt

• Compensation for expropriation
• Valuation of expropriated property
• Public interest expropriation
• Court-appointed experts
• Costs and legal fees

Read case analysis

RUKARISHYA N’UNDI vs. LETA Y’U RWANDA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2022/CA

Compensation for expropriation must be calculated based on the current market value and designated use of the property at the time of valuation, not the original purchase price or intended use by the owner. Delay damages are not awarded unless previously litigated. Legal costs and advocate fees are not awarded where both parties partially succeed and fail.

Source excerpt

• Expropriation for public interest
• Fair compensation
• Valuation of expropriated property
• Procedural fairness
• Costs and legal fees

Read case analysis