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 High Court annulled a 1 October 2019 auction for failure to follow notice requirements and because the underlying debt had already been paid.
The Court of Appeal held that mortgage-auction notices were governed by special instructions, not general procedure, and upheld the auction on POSADA PLUS Ltd’s property.
The Court of Appeal upheld cancellation of a mortgage auction because the valuation was outdated and the auction was advertised in a different newspaper than the terms required.
The High Court found no injustice in refusing to reopen a case about auction notice irregularities because the alleged new evidence had already been litigated.
The Supreme Court held that Gakire Pascal, being present at the hearing and judgment delivery, was deemed notified on the date of judgment and was required to file his appeal and grounds within three working days. His failure to do so rendered the appeal inadmissible. The Court further found no justification for the delay based on the alleged late receipt of the judgment copy. Attorney fees and costs were awarded to the respondent as the prevailing party.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that its review was strictly limited to whether there was injustice in the High Commercial Court's refusal to reinstate the dismissed case, not the merits of the auction or damages, since those issues were never adjudicated below. The law bars appeals from such procedural dismissals, and no injustice occurred in the application of the law. Thus, Minani's application lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that it could only review whether there was injustice in the High Commercial Court's refusal to admit the appeal against the refusal to reinstate the dismissed case, not the merits of the underlying auction dispute. Since the only issue previously adjudicated was the non-admissibility of the appeal (because such decisions are not appealable by law), and no injustice occurred in that process, the applicant's claim had no basis. Claims for damages and substantive review of the auction were inadmissible as they were not part of the issues previously litigated.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a purchaser at auction could intervene, but the High Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction over auction-procedure disputes.
The Court of Appeal upheld a commercial judgment confirming that the final auction of mortgaged property complied with notice rules and lawfully went to the highest bidder.
The Court of Appeal upheld the auction of mortgaged property, holding that notice requirements were met and the third-round sale to the highest bidder was valid.
Explore more
