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 second-appeal jurisdiction depends on the value of the dispute at filing. Because the 2022 value was below 50,000,000 Frw, the appeal could not be admitted.
There is no contradiction between the judgments because the parties and subject matter are not identical, and the judgments can be executed concurrently. The applicants' claim lacks merit, and they are liable for costs to the respondents for unnecessary litigation.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found conflicting final judgments over the same land dispute, set aside the later High Court decision, and upheld the earlier judgment and Abunzi decision.
The Supreme Court clarified its prior inheritance ruling, holding that all 30 UPI parcels listed in the land registry report form part of the Ruhabura succession.
The Court of Appeal held that a convicted person ordered to be retried on grounds of injustice is released pending retrial without a separate application.
The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction over the urgent application, but dismissed it as inadmissible because the issue had already been finally decided.
SONARWA HOLDINGS Ltd remains a legally existing company as per the official register and thus has standing to sue. The claim was not procedurally defective as both parties were properly joined and participated. However, the prior judgment was superseded by a valid, enforceable settlement agreement between SONARWA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Ltd (acting with authority from SONARWA HOLDINGS Ltd) and Muberangabo Titien, which extinguished any disputes arising from the execution of the judgment. Therefore, the applicant's claim to resolve disputes under the prior judgment lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a challenge to an auction must be filed as an urgent claim in the court where the auction occurred, and upheld the land registration order.
The Supreme Court partly reviewed a High Court judgment, reducing income-loss compensation to the amount proved by evidence and rejecting a refund claim.
The High Court found the auction was conducted on property registered to a non-debtor due to registration errors and that indemnity from a criminal case against Muhire Valens could not be executed against property awarded to Mukandinda Agnes after divorce. The auction was annulled, and parties were restored to their pre-auction positions.
Source excerpt
Explore more
