Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDAHIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00217/2024/CA

Ndahimana Félix was acquitted because the only evidence against him was the inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony of Niyigena Jean Bosco and a local administrative report based on hearsay, which did not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Niyigena Jean Bosco's conviction for drug trafficking was upheld because his own detailed confession, corroborated by witness statements, established intent to sell, and the small quantity seized did not negate trafficking where intent was proven.

Source excerpt

• Drug trafficking
• Standard of proof
• Evidentiary requirements
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NAHIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00510/2021/CA

The conviction for defilement of a minor was improper due to insufficient admissible evidence of the complainant's age. However, the evidence established that Nahimana Muhamadi engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant, constituting rape under Article 134 of Law No. 68/2018. The sentence was reduced to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 1,000,000 RWF, considering mitigating factors.

Source excerpt

• Sexual offences
• Rape
• Appeal
• Evidentiary requirements

Read case analysis

NDATINYA n’undi v. GAKWAYA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCAA 00002/2020/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Gakwaya breached the sale contract by not paying the balance on time, set aside the transfer order, and ordered repayment of 30,967,013 Frw with interest.

• Breach of contract
• Interpretation of contracts
• Restitution
• Infra petita and ultra petita
• Evidentiary requirements
• Interest on sums due

Read case analysis

SEMAPONDO v RWASIMPENZI ET AL

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC

The Supreme Court dismissed a review-for-injustice application over a disputed land plot, holding that the applicant failed to prove ownership of plot 1418/12438.

• Land ownership dispute
• Review for injustice
• Burden of proof
• Evidentiary requirements
• Damages and costs
• Review-for-injustice

Read case analysis

SEMAPONDO v RWASIMPENZI ET AL

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RAD 00002/2020/SC–

The Supreme Court of Rwanda dismissed Semapondo Charles’s review-for-injustice application, finding he failed to prove ownership of the disputed plot.

• Land ownership
• Burden of proof
• Review for injustice
• Lease agreements
• Damages
• Evidentiary requirements

Read case analysis

WAMUNGU v. BANKI YA KIGALI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0046/13/CS

The Supreme Court upheld most of the debt order against Wamungu, finding jurisdiction in Rwanda and shareholder liability, but rejected the bank’s incidental appeal against Mbanzabugabo.

• Jurisdiction based on place of contract
• Shareholder liability for company debts
• Foreign company status
• Evidentiary requirements
• Appeal procedure
• Commercial-law

Read case analysis