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 Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction on second appeal depends on the amount awarded in the appealed judgment, not the original claim, and dismissed both appeals.
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.
The Court of Appeal held that both parties had tacitly waived the arbitration clause by litigating in court without raising jurisdictional objections, and thus the lower courts had jurisdiction. The second appeal was inadmissible as the only ground advanced (lack of jurisdiction) was unfounded. Attorney fees and litigation costs were awarded to the respondents, but in reduced amounts due to lack of evidence of higher expenses.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal found that the High Commercial Court based its decision on existing, applicable laws, and there was no evidence it relied on a non-existent law. Therefore, the appeal was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and was not admitted. The respondent was awarded partial court and advocate fees due to expenses incurred, while the appellant's claim for such fees was denied as the appeal was not admitted.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over the second appeal because the amount awarded below was 40,400,000 Frw, below the 75,000,000 Frw threshold.
Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over a second appeal where the dispute concerned who should sell a mortgage, not a readily measurable monetary value.
The Court of Appeal held that an advance payment guarantee remained payable until the advance was fully refunded, even if the works completed exceeded the advance.
The Supreme Court held that its prior judgment had to be executed as rendered, rejected a penalty-for-non-execution motion, and awarded costs-related damages.
The Supreme Court held that Habumugisha’s administrative claim was time-barred, dismissed the appeal, and awarded EWSA counsel fees.
Self deprivation of claim is a right of the party and does not require consent of the other party; upon withdrawal, the withdrawing party is liable for court fees and reasonable counsel fees incurred by the defendant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
