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 Court of Appeal dismissed an expropriation appeal, holding the claim was filed out of time after a valuation dispute and that the 120-day rule did not apply here.
The Court of Appeal held that where parties agree on expropriation compensation, no further valuation procedure is required. Ruzibiza’s appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Niyigena Eraste’s appeal, holding that his expropriation compensation claim was filed out of time under Law No. 32/2015.
The High Court held that Nahimana’s demolished property was not conclusively shown to be in a wetland registry area and awarded compensation, distress damages, and partial costs.
The appeal was dismissed because Abunzubumwe Ltd filed its claim after the statutory limitation period, which is calculated from the date of the first administrative complaint. Subsequent complaints do not reset the limitation period. The High Court correctly rejected the claim as time-barred.
Source excerpt
The court held that only Ruticumugambi Innocent, who received the sale proceeds, is liable to reimburse the buyers for the purchase price; the other heirs are only jointly liable for the value of improvements made to the property. Restitution orders against respondents for properties no longer in their possession or acquired from third parties are invalid. No party is entitled to damages as each prevailed on some claims.
Source excerpt
EAPJC failed to prove that compensation was paid to the rightful landowners or their successors; depositing funds with the City of Kigali did not constitute valid payment in the absence of evidence of dispute among co-owners or refusal to accept payment. Respondents lawfully acquired the land, and EAPJC's appeal lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that Bizimana lawfully obtained disputed land through expropriation and that the appellants failed to prove fraud.
The Court of Appeal held that Bizimana lawfully acquired the disputed land through expropriation and payment of compensation, so the appellants failed to prove fraud.
The High Court dismissed Bizimana’s appeal, holding that the district’s admission of house damage did not justify full relocation compensation because the house remained repairable.
Explore more
