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 rwafashe ko ubujurire bwa Nsabimana butakiriwe, Twahirwa ahamwa n’ubujura busanzwe, naho Ndungutse ahamwa n’ubujura bwitwaje intwaro ariko agabanyirizwa igihano.
The Court of Appeal held that an appeal concerning debt confirmation and distraint had to be filed within three working days, and dismissed the appeal as out of time.
The appeal time limit for summary procedures is governed solely by article 188 of Law No 22/2018, which provides a three working day deadline from pronouncement or notification. This is an exception to the general rule in article 275. Uwantege Louise filed her appeal late; thus, the Commercial High Court did not err in finding the appeal time-barred. The cross-appeal is inadmissible as the principal appeal was not admitted. Respondents are entitled to court representation fees and case costs.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a detainee’s appeal time runs from notification at the correctional facility, quashed the High Court’s dismissal, and sent the case back for merits hearing.
The High Court reviewed Gatare’s challenge to a rejected appeal and auction execution, admitted the late appeal due to system failure, but upheld the auction and dismissed the review.
Cases at different procedural levels cannot be joined for joint hearing; if joined, the resulting judgment is void and matters revert to their prior state. Land title is conclusive evidence of ownership unless the challenger provides indisputable proof. Guilty plea is mitigating only if made unequivocally before close of first instance trial. Appeal grounds must be timely unless jurisdictional. Drug offences are distinguished by quantity and intent. Recusal must be based on personal relationship or interest. Second appeal on non-existent law requires actual reliance on such law. Courts may re…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court rejected a review application as time-barred, holding that diabetes did not amount to the kind of incapacity that suspends appeal deadlines.
The Supreme Court held that a review application was time-barred because diabetes, as shown, did not prove incapacity or a qualifying exceptional reason.
The Supreme Court held that Munyaburanga’s review application was time-barred. Diabetes and the medical certificates did not prove legal incapacity or a qualifying exceptional event.
The Court of Appeal held that an auction-invalidation claim is not a summary procedure, but the appeal was rejected as filed out of time.
Explore more
