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 Supreme Court dismissed a review application challenging an arbitral award, holding that claim amendments and additional evidence were permitted and that no procedural violation justified annulment.
The core binding principles are: (1) appellate courts must show, at least implicitly, that all material arguments and evidence were considered, but need not address each individually; (2) sentences cannot be increased on appeal if only the defendant appeals; (3) conspiracy to commit genocide is treated as genocide for intent and punishment; (4) accomplice liability in genocide does not require intent to destroy the group, only knowing assistance; (5) attempt liability does not apply to terrorist group membership; (6) new evidence for retrial must be truly new and material; (7) only parents or…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal established that convictions cannot be based on acts not charged in the indictment, procedural requirements for auctions and appeals are strictly statutory, sentence reductions require unequivocal guilty pleas before first instance closure, and the burden of proof and admissibility of evidence are governed by clear legal standards. Precedents are not binding if the underlying law has changed. Second appeals depend on the value or damages awarded in the prior judgment.
Source excerpt
The Commercial High Court held it had jurisdiction over an urgent arbitral challenge dispute, but that the arbitral tribunal—not KIAC—should decide the challenge.
The Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award because a party had not been given a fair chance to respond to key evidence.
The Court of Appeal upheld setting aside an arbitral award because a party was not given a chance to respond to evidence about a phone number and vehicle ownership.
The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction over a second appeal, finding the claim value exceeded the statutory threshold despite no damages being awarded below.
The Supreme Court held that the criminal-proceedings stay principle did not apply to this insurance dispute and upheld the arbitral award in substance.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda dismissed SORAS AG Ltd’s appeal, upholding an arbitral award in favor of WHITEFIELD ENTREPRISES Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that procedural and advocate fees should not be awarded in a summary procedure application; only court fees were payable on withdrawal.
Explore more
