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
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko CRBC Ltd itubahirije amasezerano yo gusuka itaka, rugenera DE HAGUENAU indishyi z’inyongera, rubihakana ku bindi byasabwe.
SOCOBICO Industries S.A. failed to prove that any of its business assets are currently possessed by ROBA Industries Ltd or were transferred through the chain of transactions originating from the auction. The right of follow-up applies only if the assets can be specifically identified, which SOCOBICO did not do. Therefore, no order for return of assets can be made against ROBA Industries Ltd. However, to clarify the composition and value of business assets to be returned by Trust Industries Ltd as per the 2013 Supreme Court judgment, an accounting expert must be appointed to identify and value…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal recalculated expropriation compensation based on the land’s designated use and current valuation, denied late-payment damages, and refused costs or attorney fees.
The Court of Appeal held ECOMUJ Ltd’s second appeal inadmissible because both lower courts dismissed it on the same grounds, and awarded costs to PRO WATER RWANDA Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that the expert report's procedural defects were cured when the experts took oath before the High Court, and that the evidence established Murenzi's construction activities—specifically overloading the wall—caused the collapse. The applicant's failure to appeal on damages barred reconsideration of that issue. Liability for damages, expert fees, and costs was affirmed against Murenzi and Uwamahoro.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the expert report, though initially lacking oaths, was regularized when the experts testified under oath in the High Court; Murenzi's improper backfilling and construction caused the wall's collapse; damages were properly assessed; Murenzi and Uwamahoro are liable to Mutabazi, Muhawenimana, and SANLAM; expert fees and costs are to be borne by Murenzi as the losing party.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld the dismissal of Africana Guest House’s appeal, finding the interest-rate issue was corrected, business support was proved, and the expert debt figure stood.
The Court of Appeal held that Esmaeil Khanabadi failed to meet the contract specifications for a wood drying machine, so BDF Ltd could rescind the contract and recover the advance.
The Court of Appeal held that the seller breached a machine sale contract, so BDF Ltd could rescind the agreement and recover the advance payment.
The Supreme Court upheld a defilement conviction, holding that an expert medical report not initially sworn could be validated when the doctor later took oath in court.
Explore more
