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 Court of Appeal held that a clarification ruling cannot be used to revive a late appeal on the principal judgment. The appeal was dismissed as out of time.
The Court of Appeal held that an application to clarify a judgment cannot be used to raise new matters. It dismissed Ufitikirezi Beatrice’s appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Masumbuko Venuste’s appeal, holding that the High Court’s interpretation of its earlier judgment clarified the division of school shares without changing the decision.
The Supreme Court found that the previous judgment lacked clarity regarding the total area and identification of the land to be inherited, which created ambiguity and hindered execution. It is necessary to clarify that the total land to be divided among the heirs is 17,022.047925 square meters, as identified by the National Land Authority, and listed by UPI numbers.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that only a party to the judgment may seek its interpretation or correction, and dismissed SONARWA Life Assurance Company Limited’s application as inadmissible.
The Supreme Court dismissed Ntagungira Jérôme’s application to interpret its earlier judgment, finding no ambiguity and no basis to alter the merits.
The Court of Appeal dismissed TURQUAZ Consultancy Ltd’s application to interpret its prior judgment, holding that interpretation cannot add issues not decided on appeal.
The application was filed outside the statutory one-month period and failed to demonstrate any substantive or clerical error in the judgments that would prevent enforcement; therefore, the application for rectification and clarification was inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Niyonzima Théophile’s appeal was inadmissible because the underlying judgment was not itself appealable to the Court of Appeal.
Explore more
