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 rejected a review application in a heroin trafficking case, holding that false testimony must be judicially declared false and must have been the sole basis of conviction.
The failure to summon the civil party, Ntabahejeje Théogène, in the review proceedings constituted a procedural injustice under Article 195 of Law Nº 027/2019, vitiating the judgment. The existence of prior judgments convicting others for the same offence did not qualify as new ground for review since Uwimanihaye Pierre Celestin was aware of them during the original proceedings. The review judgment was therefore invalid, and the original conviction was sustained.
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 Supreme Court rejected Rutazibwa Alexandre’s review application, finding no proven fraud by the land authority and no admissible new evidence.
The Supreme Court rejected a review application, holding that the alleged non-delivery of letters did not amount to fraud and would not have changed the result.
The Supreme Court held that a judgment summary can prove a prior land case and allow review for injustice where later judgments ignored res judicata.
The evidence submitted by Nyamaswa Ephron was not new, as it had already been produced and considered in previous proceedings and found lacking merit. He failed to prove it was impossible to obtain or present the evidence earlier. Therefore, the application for review does not meet the legal threshold under article 186(3) of Law N°21/2012.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that illness and having young children were not sufficient grounds to stay execution of criminal judgments pending review.
Explore more
