Rwanda Case Law

Re. Dr BARIBWIRA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

COURT-RS/INCOST/SPEC 00007/2023/SC

Article 129, paragraph 3 of Law N0 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution because it differentiates between parties based on their procedural posture for justified and reasonable grounds, specifically to avoid unnecessary dilatory proceedings. The party whose objection is dismissed is not in the same situation as the party against whom the objection is admitted, and both retain the right to appeal at appropriate stages. This differentiation does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination or denial of the right to appear before a competent court.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Right to appear before a competent court
• Appeal procedures
• Admissibility of claims

Read case analysis

Re. Dr BARIBWIRA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCOST/SPEC 00007/2023/SC

Article 129, paragraph 3 of Law N0 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution because the differentiation between parties regarding the timing of appeals is based on justified and reasonable grounds, namely the avoidance of unnecessary dilatory proceedings. The parties are not in the same procedural situation, and the law provides adequate appeal rights in both scenarios. Therefore, there is no unconstitutional inequality or deprivation of the right to appear before a competent court.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Right to appear before a competent court
• Appeal procedures
• Admissibility of claims

Read case analysis

AKARERE KA KAYONZA vs. MUREKATETE

Court

High Court

Case number

RADA 00004/2022/HC/RWG

The High Court held that a public servant may use either the general administrative appeal route or the special public service procedure, so Murekatete’s claim was admissible.

• Public employment termination
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies
• Appeal procedures
• Statutory interpretation
• Administrative-law
• Public-employment

Read case analysis

NIYOYITA vs. LETA Y’U RWANDA (MINISANTE) [

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADA 00001/2023

The Court of Appeal held that an emailed administrative appeal was valid and timely, and that the later signature request did not reset the filing date.

• Dismissal of public employees
• Appeal procedures
• Electronic evidence
• Procedural time limits
• Electronic-evidence
• Administrative-appeals

Read case analysis

IMIRONGO CoA - No 7- April - 2023

Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal established binding principles on criminal responsibility and mental illness, the definition of contradictory judgments, the limits of procedural error as grounds for second appeal, the requirements for recusal, evidentiary standards for property division among unmarried cohabitants, the scope of mitigating circumstances in sentencing, the validity of confessions, the appellate court's power to reduce sentences, the corroboration requirement for child testimony, and the rule that doubt must benefit the accused.

Source excerpt

• Criminal responsibility and mental illness
• Contradictory judgments
• Forgery and use of forged documents
• Recusal of judges
• Division of property for unmarried cohabitants
• Sentencing principles

Read case analysis

IMIRONGO YATANZWE NA COURT OF APPEAL BOOKLET 4

Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal established that mitigating circumstances can justify reducing sentences below statutory minimums, clarified the distinction between murder and assault causing death, set evidentiary standards for group crime and infanticide, and confirmed the burden of proof in illicit enrichment. The court also affirmed the correction of clerical errors, the limited effect of late admissions of guilt, the need for corroboration of child testimony, and the retroactive application of interpretive ministerial orders.

Source excerpt

• Sexual offenses against minors
• Assault and battery
• Formation of criminal groups
• Infanticide
• Illicit enrichment
• Correction of judgments

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. SHUJUN N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPA 00034/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal set aside an immediate-arrest order, holding that new and compelling reasons distinct from pre-trial detention grounds were required.

• Pre-trial detention
• Immediate arrest upon conviction
• Right to fair trial
• Appeal procedures
• Criminal-procedure
• Pre-trial-detention

Read case analysis

WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC

The Supreme Court held that a third party opposition judgment remained appealable, quashed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal, and upheld the High Court on the enforcement formula issue.

• Enforcement of arbitral awards
• Third party opposition
• Administrative decisions
• Appeal procedures
• Judicial review
• Third-party-opposition

Read case analysis

WHITEFIELD INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD v THOMAS ET PIRON GRANDS LACS

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RAD 00001/2020/SC

The Supreme Court held that Whitefield’s appeal should have been heard, but upheld the High Court on the enforcement-formula issue and awarded limited costs.

• Enforcement of arbitral awards
• Third party opposition
• Administrative decisions of courts
• Appeal procedures
• Judicial review
• Third-party-opposition

Read case analysis