Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwatesheje agaciro umusoro kuri 41.971.000 Frw, rwemeza ko wari washatsewa umusoro mbere; rwemeza ariko ko 450.114.953 Frw na 996.101.280 Frw bigomba gusoreshwa.
A notarial will is invalid if secrecy is breached by disclosure to a beneficiary before the testator's death, as this contravenes the requirement for confidentiality under Rwandan succession law. In tax matters, a second audit following annulment of the first for procedural errors does not require explicit mention in the annulment decision. In criminal cases, mitigation of sentence is discretionary and must be justified by the court, which is not bound to reduce the sentence even if mitigating factors are present. Confessions and witness statements retain evidentiary value subject to judicial…
Source excerpt
The Court held that under Article 44 of Law No. 026/2019, when a tax audit is annulled due to errors by RRA, a new audit may be conducted without explicit authorization in the annulment decision. Notification of fault by email is valid and does not require a physical signature if the taxpayer acknowledges receipt. RRA provided sufficient evidence for the assessment. EUROWORLD RENT-A-CAR Ltd's services were not exempt as principal transport services but were taxable car rental services. The appeal was dismissed and the previous judgment upheld.
Source excerpt
The core holding is that the Court of Appeal's precedents from July 2022 to June 2025 establish binding interpretations on jurisdiction, procedure, evidence, remedies, and substantive law across civil, commercial, labour, administrative, insurance, family, tax, and criminal matters. Lower courts and litigants must follow these lines unless overruled or changed by law. Procedural compliance, evidentiary sufficiency, and adherence to statutory and contractual obligations are mandatory. Remedies are limited to those proven and allowed by law. Precedent is binding unless expressly overruled.
Source excerpt
The USD 200,000,000 advanced by IHS Mauritius Rwanda Ltd to IHS Rwanda Ltd did not meet the legal criteria for a loan (no interest, no security, no repayment schedule) and was therefore equity, not debt. Consequently, foreign exchange losses on this amount were not deductible. Depreciation on tower components (batteries, cables, lights) was properly calculated at 10% as they are telecommunications assets with a lifespan over 10 years. Losses from 2015 were not properly appealed to the Commissioner General and could not be judicially reviewed. IHS Rwanda Ltd was not entitled to costs or attorn…
Source excerpt
The USD 200,000,000 advanced by IHS Mauritius Rwanda Ltd to IHS Rwanda Ltd did not meet the legal requirements of a loan—lacking interest, security, and a clear repayment schedule—and thus constituted equity, not debt. Consequently, foreign exchange losses claimed on this amount were not deductible. Depreciation on tower components (batteries, cables, lights) was correctly calculated at 10% as they are part of telecom assets with a lifespan over 10 years, and IHS Rwanda Ltd failed to prove otherwise. The 2015 loss of 4,369,743,840 Frw was not properly appealed to the Commissioner General and…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court dismissed TSC’s extraordinary appeal and upheld payment of the outstanding contract balance, TVA, and litigation costs to GMS.
The Court of Appeal upheld a jurisdictional objection and struck out RRA’s second appeal, finding it had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
Transport services provided by SRDS Ltd in the course of distributing BRALIRWA products do not qualify as VAT-exempt professional transport under Rwandan law. The transport was ancillary to the principal activity of distribution, which is not VAT-exempt. Therefore, VAT was lawfully assessed on these services.
Source excerpt
Transport services provided by SRDS Ltd in the course of distributing BRALIRWA’s products are accessory to the principal activity of distribution, which is not VAT exempt. Therefore, such transport services are not VAT exempt, regardless of licensing. Only transport services provided as a principal activity are VAT exempt under the law. The Court of Appeal’s contrary interpretation is overruled.
Source excerpt
Explore more
