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The Organic Law No 04/2012/OL abolishing Gacaca courts is no longer in force and cannot be challenged for constitutionality. The challenge to Article 197(4) of Law No 027/2019 is admissible because the legal grounds and factual context differ from those in the Kamanzi Anaclet case, so res judicata does not apply.
Source excerpt
The petition is admissible because Article 106 of Law No 027/2019, though similar in part to the previously reviewed Article 121 of Law No 13/2004, contains new elements and wording, and the applicant raises new constitutional grounds. Res judicata does not bar review where the legal provision or its context has materially changed.
Source excerpt
The Court held that Article 143 of Law Nº68/2018 is not contrary to Articles 13, 15, or 16 of the Constitution. The law is neutral in its wording, applies equally to all persons, and does not, on its face, discriminate on the basis of gender. Alleged discriminatory enforcement does not render the law itself unconstitutional. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a causal link between the law and any violation of the right to physical and mental integrity or to prove that the law is vague to the extent of violating constitutional rights.
Source excerpt
A petition seeking a declaration that a statutory provision is unconstitutional is intended to have the provision struck down if found inconsistent with the Constitution. In this case, since both parties agreed that Article 41 of Law No. 30/2018 is not itself inconsistent with the Constitution, and the applicant only sought its amendment, the Supreme Court found no basis to declare it unconstitutional.
Source excerpt
A constitutional petition challenging a law or provision must concern a law that is currently in force and being applied; if the law has been repealed and is no longer operative, the petition is inadmissible and cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Murangwa Edward has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the impugned statutory provisions because the laws in question apply to all persons in Rwanda, including the applicant, and may affect his fundamental rights. The Court reaffirmed that standing in constitutional litigation is interpreted broadly, and it is sufficient if the applicant is among those affected by the law, without the need to show actual harm. The Court also recognized standing for public interest litigation and for advocates acting in the interest of justice.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Counsel Ngendahayo Kabuye had a legitimate interest to challenge the constitutionality of succession law provisions, and ordered the merits hearing to resume.
The applicant, as a professional journalist, has both a personal and public interest in challenging the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, as they directly affect his professional duties and the broader right to freedom of the press. The Court finds that locus standi in constitutional matters must be interpreted broadly, but applicants must still demonstrate a specific personal interest. The applicant meets this threshold.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Byansi Samuel Baker, a journalist, had standing to challenge criminal law provisions affecting press freedom and ordered the merits hearing to continue.
Byansi Samuel Baker, as a journalist, has both personal and public interest in challenging the constitutionality of the impugned provisions. The Court found that the interest required for standing in constitutional matters should be interpreted broadly, and that Byansi demonstrated a specific and direct interest affected by the challenged law.
Source excerpt
Explore more
