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
The Court of Appeal held that Benda Rosine’s second appeal was inadmissible because she had lost in the lower courts on the same grounds. Costs were awarded to the district.
The Court of Appeal held that the urgent commercial claim was not barred as a second appeal, but dismissed the appeal as late under Article 188 of Law No. 22/2018.
The Court of Appeal held that Kigali Super Star Ltd’s second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost on the same grounds in both lower courts.
The Court of Appeal held that a High Court reference to a repealed statute was only a clerical error, so GT Bank’s second appeal was inadmissible.
The Supreme Court held that BPR ATLAS MARA Plc lost in both lower courts on the same grounds, and the issue of SGES/ATT Ltd's intervention did not alter the substance of the dispute. The Court found no error or injustice in the Court of Appeal's refusal to admit the second appeal. SGES/ATT Ltd could not be a party to the review as it was never admitted as a party in the original proceedings. The application for review lacked merit, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal found that SOTRAPROMETAL Ltd was defeated in both lower courts on the same grounds—namely, that the debt in question had already been adjudicated in a prior case and could not be relitigated. Therefore, under Article 52 of Law No 30/2018, the second appeal was inadmissible. The court also found BRD entitled to partial costs and attorney fees.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held AFRICABET’s second appeal inadmissible because the case did not meet the statutory jurisdictional threshold and the lower court did not rely on post-closure filings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed AFRICABET’s second appeal as inadmissible, holding that the statutory conditions were not met, including the 75,000,000 Frw threshold.
The Court of Appeal held that Niyonzima Théophile’s appeal was inadmissible because the underlying judgment was not itself appealable to the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court held that BPR Atlas Mara’s review application lacked merit, confirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling, and awarded Nkusi Evariste fees.
Explore more
