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 dismissed a review claim in a loan dispute, held the principal debt was USD 50,000, found no unlawful excessive interest, and upheld the prior judgment.
Both Rwagasana and Mukakimenyi are jointly liable for the outstanding principal and interest to BK Ltd as all relevant contracts were signed by both; the 19.25% interest rate after contract termination is valid due to applicant's acquiescence and contract terms; expert and legal fees are awarded at the court's discretion, not at the excessive rates claimed; judicial fee clauses are not abusive if not excessive or unsubstantiated.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found that Rwagasana and Mukakimenyi are jointly liable for the principal loan and late fines as per the contract and expert report, that the interest rate of 19.25% for late fines is valid due to borrower’s acceptance and contractual stipulation, that procedural and counsel fees must be awarded at the court’s discretion and not strictly by contract percentage, that expert fees are recoverable by the bank, and that Mukakimenyi is jointly liable as she signed all relevant agreements.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found that Rwagasana and Mukakimenyi were jointly liable for the principal loan and late fines as per the contract, including the performance guarantee paid by BK Ltd. The interest rate of 19.25% for late fines was valid as Rwagasana was notified and did not object. Mukakimenyi could not repudiate liability as she signed all relevant agreements. Procedural and counsel fees were awarded at the court's discretion, not at the contractual percentage, and expert fees paid by BK Ltd must be reimbursed by Rwagasana as he lost the case.
Source excerpt
The Commercial High Court upheld the debt and damages, refused to reduce interest, denied moral damages, and awarded attorney fees on appeal.
The Supreme Court upheld a loan repayment agreement, reduced contractual interest to 6%, rejected force majeure, and confirmed that the wife’s non-signature did not invalidate the contract.
The contract between RUMANYIKA and RUZINDANA was valid; agreed interest and penalties were enforceable under Rwandan law; lack of spousal signature did not invalidate the contract as family property was not directly at issue; force majeure did not apply as non-performance could have been avoided; interest rate was reduced to 6% per annum as 12% was excessive; court fees and penalties were recalculated and allocated accordingly.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court partly allowed cross-appeals in a bank loan dispute, reducing excessive damages, offsetting payments against the debt, and ordering a lower net balance.
Explore more
