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 found the 12/07/2001 document did not prove an employment contract between Ndahimana and EDPR, and dismissed his claims.
The Court of Appeal held that Akarere ka Nyabihu’s second appeal was inadmissible because the lower courts rejected it on the same essential grounds.
The court held that the notarial settlement agreement of 17/01/2022 between CODELOC Ltd and TRIPOD Logistics Ltd, which converted the debt into shares, was binding and precluded further litigation on the same debt. Since the dispute had already been resolved by a valid notarial instrument, the lower court should not have entertained the claim. The court also found that the applicants were properly notified of the proceedings. As a result, the lower court's judgment was set aside, and CODELOC Ltd was ordered to pay costs and legal fees to TRIPOD Logistics Ltd and Market Impact Ltd.
Source excerpt
If a bank unfairly dismisses an employee who received a loan at a preferential employee rate, the rate remains applicable for repayment; the bank cannot benefit from its own breach by increasing the rate. Excess interest deducted due to the bank's unilateral rate increase must be refunded with accrued interest at the commercial rate used by the bank during the deduction period.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that BUFCOFFEE Ltd’s second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The High Court held that sellers who failed to transfer land after full payment committed a fundamental breach, rescinded the sale, and ordered refund and damages.
The Court of Appeal held that Ujenge Rwanda Ltd sold mortgaged apartments without lender consent, upheld nullity of unauthorized sales, and protected only buyers who purchased before mortgage registration.
The Court of Appeal held that the letter from the National Public Prosecution Authority ordering seizure of funds was an unforeseeable act of public authority (fait du prince) and a force majeure event under the settlement agreement. Umujyi wa Kigali could not be held liable for non-payment, as it had no discretion to ignore the order and did not cause or foresee the event. Consequently, all damages and interest awarded by the High Court were set aside.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Radiant Insurance Company Ltd had to honor the advance payment guarantee on first demand, but refused damages for lack of proof of loss.
The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings stay civil proceedings only for claims arising from the offence, and upheld an arbitration award in an insurance dispute.
Explore more
