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 struck out ZJ Construction’s appeal after it failed to appear without valid reason, and awarded costs to the respondent and interveners.
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction because the damages awarded to Mutabazi Steven and appealed by him do not reach the statutory threshold of RWF 75,000,000. Only the amount awarded to the appellant and actually appealed is relevant for jurisdiction, not the aggregate of all awards to all parties.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction because the damages awarded to Mutabazi Steven in the appealed judgment (FRW 31,791,476) do not meet the statutory threshold of FRW 75,000,000 required for appellate jurisdiction. Only the damages awarded to the appellant and challenged on appeal are relevant for jurisdictional assessment.
Source excerpt
The appeal by Mukamana BĂ©atrice was dismissed because she filed in her own name while claiming to represent the Seburimbwa Joseph family without proof of authority, making her claim inadmissible. Habumugisha CĂ©lestin's appeal was dismissed because he failed to provide valid evidence that the property in question was solely his, and any alleged transfer of interest was invalid without the co-owner's consent and proper notarization. Both appeals lacked merit, and the lower court's decision was upheld.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed an administrative appeal over unpaid compensation for marshland works, holding that Nyagatare District was not the proper defendant and MINAGRI need not be joined.
The High Court held that Nyagatare District was not the proper defendant and that there was no special reason to join MINAGRI (RSSP) on appeal.
The High Court dismissed an administrative appeal over compensation for damaged land, finding Nyagatare District was not the proper defendant and MINAGRI need not be joined.
The High Court held that res judicata did not apply because the parties and claims were not the same, set aside the dismissal, and remitted the case.
The appeal was allowed because the lower court erred in proceeding to the merits and ruling on the accessory claim after finding that the main claim was inadmissible for being brought against a party who was not the registered owner. Both the principal and accessory claims should have been dismissed outright, and no damages were warranted as no party was wrongfully drawn into litigation.
Source excerpt
The appeal was allowed because the lower court erred by proceeding against an accessory party after finding the principal claim inadmissible for being brought against a non-owner. Both the principal and accessory claims should have been dismissed outright, and no damages awarded.
Source excerpt
Explore more
