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 held that career damages require proof of prior employment and injury-related impact on that work, and ordered reimbursement of the award.
The accident suffered by Habakubaho was not a road accident but resulted from a mechanical defect of the vehicle’s door during unloading, not related to his employment duties. The insurer (Sanlam) is not liable as the risk was not covered under the insurance contract. The employer (Bralirwa) is not liable as the accident was not an occupational hazard. Sorwatraco Ltd, as owner of the defective vehicle, is liable for damages under ordinary civil law for failing to maintain the vehicle in a safe condition.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that compensation for loss of earning capacity (indishyi z'ibangamira ry'uburambe mu kazi) is only available to those who prove they had a job at the time of the accident. Since Ndahimana did not provide sufficient evidence of employment, the award for loss of earning capacity was overturned. Other damages were upheld as they were supported by evidence and legal principles regarding the burden of proof and judicial discretion.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Mulindahabi’s crash was an ordinary road accident, not a work accident, and reinstated the intermediate court’s compensation award.
The prescription period for filing a civil claim for accident-related damages is suspended for a parentless minor who lacks a legal guardian, and resumes only upon attainment of civil majority. Uwizeyimana’s claim was therefore not time-barred, and the insurer’s application for review was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the five-year prescription period for motor-accident compensation did not run against a minor without legal representatives until majority.
The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability below 30% is calculated using SMIG, not actual salary, and dismissed the review application.
SANLAM's application for review was filed 45 working days after the judgment delivery date, exceeding the statutory 30-day limit, as all parties were present and notified of the delivery date. Therefore, the application was inadmissible for failure to comply with procedural time limits.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that exceeding an insured vehicle’s passenger limit does not defeat victims’ rights to compensation from the insurer.
The Court of Appeal held Sorwatraco Ltd liable for injuries caused by its vehicle door and awarded damages, finding the insurer was not liable under the policy.
Explore more
