UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUKANDANYUZWE
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko igihano cya Mukandanyuzwe Jamila ari cyo gito gishoboka kandi ko ubujurire bwe nta shingiro bufite.
- Drug offences
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Fine reduction
- Appeal
- Criminal-law
Rwanda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked
Rwanda Case Law
Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
- Courts on this page
- 1 court collection
- Last checked
Search and filter Rwanda case law
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MBYARIYEHE N’UNDI
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko ubujurire bwa Mbyariyehe na Nagaba nta shingiro bufite, rusigaho igifungo cy’imyaka 15 n’ihazabu ya 5.000.000Frw kuri buri wese.
- Drug offences
- Cannabis
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Appeal
- Criminal-law
UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUPENZI
The conviction was upheld based on the defendant's confession, corroborating witness testimony, and documentary evidence. The sentence reduction previously granted was deemed sufficient given the circumstances and gravity of the offence. The appeal lacked merit and the prior judgment was affirmed.
Source excerpt
- Drug offences
- Sentencing
- Evidence assessment
- Appeal procedure
UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAYIZEYE
The conviction of Ndayizeye Patrick was quashed because the only evidence against him was uncorroborated testimony from co-accused and a witness with a personal grudge, with no physical evidence linking him to the drugs. The law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of such proof, the accused must be acquitted.
Source excerpt
- Drug offences
- Standard of proof
- Testimonial evidence
- Acquittal
UBUSHINJACYAHA v HAFASHIMANA
The Court of Appeal held that a drug-trafficking sentence reduced to 15 years and a RWF 5,000,000 fine could not be further reduced or suspended.
- Drug offences
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Appeal procedure
- Drug-offences
- Mitigating-circumstances
UBUSHINJACYAHA v MUKANDAMAGE
The appeal was dismissed because Mukandamage's own admissions and corroborating evidence established drug trafficking, not mere possession. The sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was lawfully imposed considering mitigating circumstances, but could not be suspended as it exceeded five years. The court found no error in the lower court's judgment or sentence.
Source excerpt
- Drug offences
- Appeal procedure
- Sentencing
- Change of charge qualification
UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDUNGUTSE
The Court of Appeal upheld a 15-year prison term and fine for cannabis trafficking, holding that this was the minimum sentence allowed after mitigating factors.
- Drug offences
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Application of amended statutes
- Criminal-sentencing
- Drug-offences
UBUSHINJACYAHA v NZAMUHABWANIKI
The appeal was dismissed because the statutory minimum sentence for the offence, after mitigation, is fifteen years' imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwandan francs, and further reduction or suspension is not permitted by law.
Source excerpt
- Drug offences
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Appeals
UBUSHINJACYAHA v BIZIMANA
The Court of Appeal reduced BIZIMANA Emmanuel’s sentence for cannabis վաճառ? to 15 years’ imprisonment and a 5,000,000 Frw fine, finding further reduction was justified.
- Sentencing
- Mitigating circumstances
- Drug offences
- Appeal procedure
- Criminal-sentencing
- Appeals
UBUSHINJACYAHA v NSENGIYUMVA
The Court of Appeal held that Nsengiyumva Callixte could not receive a further sentence reduction and upheld the 15-year prison term and 5,000,000 Frw fine.
- Drug offences
- Sentencing
- Appeals
- Mitigating circumstances
- Criminal-law
- Drug-offences
Explore more