Rwanda Case Law

LIFE GOAL COMPANY Ltd vs ECK STRONG Ltd N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMA 00004/2023/CA

The urgent application by Life Goal Company Ltd was inadmissible because it was not the party who initiated the main suit in the High Commercial Court. Only the party who filed the main suit has standing to bring an urgent application. Consequently, the High Commercial Court's decision was set aside, and Life Goal Company Ltd was ordered to pay costs and attorney fees to Niyonsaba Edouard.

Source excerpt

• Urgent applications
• Standing to sue
• Interlocutory relief
• Costs
• Evidence
• Contractual liability

Read case analysis

BANKI NKURU Y'U RWANDA (BNR) v NGEZAHOGUHORA N’UNDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2022/SC

Rwanda Supreme Court partly granted review for injustice, modifying liability for a duplicated plot sale and allocating restitution, compensation, and costs.

• Eviction guarantee
• Double sale
• Contractual liability
• Damages
• Restitution
• Double-sale

Read case analysis

AKARERE KA KIREHE v SAHAM ASSURANCE RWANDA LTD (SANLAM ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Plc) N’ABANDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00002/2021/SC

The Supreme Court held that only the party seeking review for injustice could raise substantive claims in rehearing, and that intentional insurance breach excluded coverage.

• Review for injustice
• Motor vehicle insurance
• Contractual liability
• Standing in appeals
• Apportionment of damages
• Review-for-injustice

Read case analysis

CITY OF KIGALI v. RWABUKWISI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00005/2019/CA

The City of Kigali was prevented from performing its contractual obligation to pay Rwabukwisi Jean due to an unforeseeable administrative act (Prosecution Authority's seizure order), which constituted force majeure under the contract and law, thus exonerating it from liability for non-performance and damages.

Source excerpt

• Force majeure
• Contractual liability
• Non-performance of contract
• Seizure of assets
• Public administration acts

Read case analysis

UMUJYI WA KIGALI v. RWABUKWISI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00005/2019/CA

The Court held that the letter from the National Public Prosecution Authority ordering the seizure of funds constituted an unforeseeable act of public authority (fait du prince) and force majeure, excusing Umujyi wa Kigali from liability for non-performance of the settlement agreement. Consequently, Umujyi wa Kigali was not liable for payment of compensatory or moral damages to Rwabukwisi Jean.

Source excerpt

• Force majeure
• Fait du prince
• Public authority acts
• Contractual liability
• Damages
• Enforcement of settlement agreements

Read case analysis

CITY OF KIGALI v. RWABUKWISI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RADAA 00005/2019/CA

The Court of Appeal held that a Prosecution Authority letter was an administrative act amounting to force majeure, excusing the City of Kigali’s non-performance.

• Force majeure
• Contractual liability
• Administrative acts
• Seizure of assets
• Damages
• Provisional execution

Read case analysis

SHIMA TRAVEL AGENCY LTD v. BYABAGABO

Court

Commercial High Court

Case number

RCOMA 00427/2016/CHC/HCC

The court allowed SHIMA Travel Agency’s appeal, holding that the wrong party had been sued and that any transport breach was attributable to KLM, not the agency.

• Contractual liability
• Transport contracts
• Agency liability
• Damages
• Procedural misjoinder
• Contractual-liability

Read case analysis

SNCTPC - CHINA ROAD v. BEST Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0196/12/CS

The Supreme Court held SNCTPC-China Road was not liable to BEST Ltd for quarry damages, and that BEST’s claims based on a prior transaction were inadmissible.

• Damages
• Contractual liability
• Administrative decisions
• Appeals procedure
• Corporate authority
• Administrative-law

Read case analysis

TRANSCORWA v. BCR

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0097/10/CS

The Supreme Court held that TRANSCORWA could not claim commercial damages for a lost CRS contract because the disputed USD 173,797 transfer had been made by mistake.

• Bank transfers
• Damages
• Mistaken payments
• Contractual liability
• Commercial-law
• Bank-transfers

Read case analysis