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 Supreme Court held that Mihigo Bernard lacked direct and personal interest to sue Karongi District over payment tied to CBS’s judgment and dismissed the review application.
The Supreme Court held that Mihigo Bernard lacked direct and personal standing to sue Karongi District for payment based on an unnotified debt assignment from CBS.
The Supreme Court held that a claim against a public official based on repealed Article 184 of Law No 22/2018 was inadmissible and upheld the objection.
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to determine disputes over conflicting final judgments; such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Supreme Court as established in RC 00001/2023/CS.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to demonstrate any real urgency or irreparable harm that would result from execution of the judgment before the review application was determined. His concerns about undervaluation and inability to recover property are speculative and do not meet the legal threshold for urgent relief. The High Commercial Court did not err in dismissing the urgent application. The bailiff, having been unnecessarily joined, is entitled to partial costs and advocate's fees.
Source excerpt
SOCOBICO Industries S.A failed to provide sufficient evidence to identify and prove the existence of its fonds de commerce in the hands of ROBA Industries Ltd or through the chain of transfers from Trust Industries Ltd and Catch Up Investment Ltd. Therefore, no restitution can be ordered against ROBA Industries Ltd. However, to clarify the composition and value of the fonds de commerce that Trust Industries Ltd was previously ordered to return, an expert accountant must be appointed to determine the assets as of the auction date.
Source excerpt
The auction was annulled because the property was not properly registered as collateral and no valid valuation was conducted or communicated to the owner, violating mandatory legal provisions. These procedural defects rendered the auction void, requiring restoration of the parties to their pre-auction positions.
Source excerpt
The Commercial High Court held that provisions on compelling compliance with judgments and sanctions for non-compliance are not limited to administrative cases.
The Court of Appeal held that a registrar’s refusal to register a claim was provisional, and BPR Plc was liable for releasing seized funds before the process ended.
The Court of Appeal held that the enforcement claim was properly before the Commercial High Court, but dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.
Explore more
