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 Niyonsaba François’s request to interpret a prior judgment, holding that he was really challenging the merits rather than seeking clarification.
The Supreme Court dismissed Mpongempite Emmanuel’s claim that two final Gacaca judgments from Nyabitare conflicted, finding only one final judgment for that date.
The High Court held that a criminal litigant cannot pursue an appeal after already seeking retrial in the same case; the first remedy used bars the other.
Paragraph 4 of Article 161 of Law No 22/2018 does not violate Articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution. The limitation on third-party opposition to judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is justified by the need for finality in litigation, applies equally to all, and does not deprive individuals of access to justice or property rights, as alternative remedies exist.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that article 161(4) of Law No 22/2018 is constitutional and dismissed the petition challenging limits on third-party opposition.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda held that the advocates’ challenge was inadmissible because it sought to undo a definitive part of a mixed judgment already rendered.
The Supreme Court holds that, in the absence of explicit statutory provision, it retains jurisdiction to resolve conflicts between final judgments, including those it previously rendered, as it is the highest court and the source of binding legal guidance. The objection to its jurisdiction is unfounded and dismissed.
Source excerpt
Supreme Court guidance on reviewing final judgments for injustice in Rwanda, explaining grounds, parties, procedure, and 30-day filing rules.
Supreme Court precedents explain when a judgment may be revised for injustice, who may apply, what issues can be raised, and the procedural limits.
The Supreme Court partly allowed a review for injustice, upheld finality of a prior land judgment, but ordered the seller to compensate the buyer for eviction losses.
Explore more
