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 an emailed administrative appeal was valid and timely, and that the later signature request did not reset the filing date.
The Court of Appeal held that Niyoyita’s email appeal was valid and timely, and that lack of a handwritten signature did not defeat the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that an email appeal to the Public Service Commission was valid and timely, so the High Court wrongly rejected the claim as out of time.
The claim by Bisangwa Jean de Dieu was inadmissible because it was filed as a one-party explanatory application under Article 178 of Law No 22/2018, whereas the special procedure for public employees under Article 70 of Law No 017/2020 required a substantive claim with all parties summoned. The High Court erred in granting relief based solely on the Commission's failure to respond. All decisions based on the improper procedure must be set aside.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Bisangwa's claim for reinstatement, filed as a one-party explanatory petition under Article 178 of Law No 22/2018, was procedurally improper because the special statute governing public employees (Law No 017/2020) provides a specific procedure for challenging dismissal. The special law overrides the general law, and the lower courts erred by accepting the claim and granting relief. All decisions based on the improper procedure were set aside.
Source excerpt
Acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action for the same facts under administrative law; procedural irregularities in notification of dismissal do not invalidate the dismissal or entitle to damages absent proof of prejudice; the applicant failed to prove legal or factual grounds for reinstatement or damages; the appeal is dismissed and the applicant is ordered to pay costs.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Vuzimpundu’s dismissal was unlawful because it was issued by an official without proper authority, but her refusal to swear on the flag was a lawful ground for dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda dismissed an appeal over dismissal for refusing to take the statutory oath, holding that freedom of religion did not excuse compliance.
Explore more
