Rwanda Case Law

EDCL v. CP NIYONSABA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00004/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court did not err in relying on the maximum value (36,746 Frw/sqm) from the 2021 Official Gazette as determined by three independent valuers, since the Gazette values were outdated by 2023 and intended for use only for six months. The independent valuation reflected the actual market value at the time of expropriation. The Court also found no procedural error in admitting the valuers' report at the appellate stage. EDCL's appeal was dismissed as unfounded, and the compensation and legal costs awarded by the High Court were upheld.

Source excerpt

• Compensation for expropriation
• Valuation of immovable property
• Judicial review of compensation awards
• Procedural requirements in appeals

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. MUTANGIZA N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00014/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal allowed the City of Kigali to withdraw its appeal, holding that consent of the other parties was not required and awarding appellate costs.

• Withdrawal of appeal
• Compensation for expropriation
• Costs and attorney fees
• Public interest expropriation
• Withdrawal-of-appeal
• Appellate-costs

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v BINTUNIMANA N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00012/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal accepted Umujyi wa Kigali’s withdrawal of its appeal and held that the respondents’ cross-appeals would not be heard.

• Withdrawal of appeal
• Compensation for expropriation
• Costs and attorney fees
• Withdrawal-of-appeal
• Civil-procedure
• Costs-and-attorney-fees

Read case analysis

BAYINGANA N’ABANDI v. UMUJYI WA KIGALI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00009/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed an expropriation appeal, holding the claim was filed out of time after a valuation dispute and that the 120-day rule did not apply here.

• Expropriation for public interest
• Compensation for expropriation
• Procedural time limits
• Standing of legal representatives
• Expropriation
• Compensation-for-expropriation

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. SAHINKUYE N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00011/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal allowed UMUJYI WA KIGALI to withdraw its appeal and held that the dependent incidental appeals could not be examined.

• Withdrawal of claim
• Compensation for expropriation
• Costs and attorney fees
• Withdrawal-of-appeal
• Civil-procedure
• Court-costs

Read case analysis

NYIRINKINDI v. EDCL N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RAD00002/2024/SC

The applicant failed to provide credible, non-speculative evidence that the electricity pylons or transmission line caused compensable harm or prevented the use of his land for its designated agricultural purpose. The applicant's claims for compensation and removal of pylons are unsupported by admissible evidence. New claims regarding relocation cannot be entertained in a review for injustice as they were not raised in prior proceedings.

Source excerpt

• Burden of proof
• Compensation for expropriation
• Electricity infrastructure
• Judicial review
• Res judicata

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v BAYINGANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA00023/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal by Umujyi wa Kigali was inadmissible because the appellant lost in both lower courts on the same legal grounds, specifically regarding the respondent's entitlement to compensation for expropriation. Both lower courts applied the same legal reasoning and found for the respondent, thus Article 52(3) of Law No. 30/2018 barred a second appeal. The court also confirmed the respondent's entitlement to costs and attorney fees at this level.

Source excerpt

• Appellate jurisdiction
• Expropriation for public interest
• Compensation for expropriation
• Standing to sue
• Court fees and costs

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. BAYINGANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00023/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the applicant lost in both lower courts on the same grounds, and awarded costs to Bayingana.

• Compensation for expropriation
• Jurisdiction of appellate courts
• Standing to sue
• Public interest expropriation
• Legal status of property in wetlands
• Jurisdiction-of-appellate-courts

Read case analysis

IMIRONGO CoA - No 25 - March 2025

Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal established that in criminal cases, especially defilement of minors, no excuse or justification can exonerate the accused; strict liability applies. In contract and commercial matters, failure to meet contractual deadlines without valid reason constitutes breach, entitling the other party to terminate and claim damages. In appeals, procedural compliance is mandatory, and mitigation of sentence is strictly limited to confessions made before closure of first instance proceedings. Evidence, including hearsay and testimony from minors, is admissible if corroborated. In drug ca…

Source excerpt

• Sexual offences against children
• Contract breach
• Exequatur
• Appeals procedure
• Mitigation of sentence
• Evidence law

Read case analysis

NYIRINKINDI v. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (EDCL)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00018/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Nyirinkindi Amiel filed his appeal out of time and dismissed it as inadmissible, awarding EDCL court costs and advocate’s fees.

• Appeal deadlines
• Compensation for expropriation
• Court fees
• Timeliness of appeal
• Appeal-deadlines
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis