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 reviewed a land dispute for injustice, held that the sold parcel was UPI 2/01/01/04/3894, and ordered correction of the land records.
The High Court found that the property in dispute was acquired during the period of cohabitation between Nsengiyumva Alexis and Nyirantezimana Marie, and thus subject to equal division under Article 39 of Law No 59/2008. The appellant failed to provide credible evidence to rebut the respondent's timeline or acquisition of property. The award of legal costs and attorney fees to the respondent was justified as the appellant was found to be the cause of the litigation. The appellant's counter-claim for compensation was rejected. The new claim for child support was inadmissible at the appellate s…
Source excerpt
The High Court held Musoni Evariste’s appeal was timely, set aside the lower court judgment, dismissed a proposed intervention, and awarded costs.
The Court of Appeal held that there was no credible proof the disputed land had been lawfully redistributed, so Karamaga Camille’s appeal was dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that the claimant did not prove six continuous months of work to qualify as a permanent employee, but social security contributions were still due.
The court held that the respondent acquired ownership of the property through a valid sale, fully paid and confirmed by the sellers, prior to SKOL's attachment. Delay in mutation (registration) due to being abroad did not extinguish her rights. The absence of a 'date certaine' did not invalidate the sale, as evidence and consistent testimony established genuine transfer. SKOL's attachment was therefore baseless, and the respondent is entitled to registration and partial legal costs.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that NKAKA MAIZE MILLS Ltd lost in both lower courts on the same grounds, so its appeal was inadmissible under Article 52.
The Supreme Court held that MUNYABURANGA’s revision application was filed out of time because diabetes did not prove legal incapacity or force majeure.
The Supreme Court held that a revision application based on new evidence was filed out of time. Diabetes and alleged mental problems did not prove legal incapacity or force majeure.
The Supreme Court held that Munyaburanga’s revision application was filed out of time because his illness did not amount to legal incapacity under the law.
Explore more
