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 petition is admissible because Article 106 of Law No 027/2019, though similar in part to the previously reviewed Article 121 of Law No 13/2004, contains new elements and wording, and the applicant raises new constitutional grounds. Res judicata does not bar review where the legal provision or its context has materially changed.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to provide credible, non-speculative evidence that the electricity pylons or transmission line caused compensable harm or prevented the use of his land for its designated agricultural purpose. The applicant's claims for compensation and removal of pylons are unsupported by admissible evidence. New claims regarding relocation cannot be entertained in a review for injustice as they were not raised in prior proceedings.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Sindizera’s review request, holding that he could not raise a new injustice ground and that the pension dispute was governed by the special pension law.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of internal rules and regulations of the Bar Association. The requirement for an ILPD diploma and Bar admission test for advocates, but not for judges/prosecutors or other professions, does not violate the principle of equality before the law because the legal profession is distinct and requires specialized qualifications. The legislator had discretion to provide transitional exemptions for certain advocates and judicial defenders, and the exclusion of judges/prosecutors from these exemptions does not constitute unconstituti…
Source excerpt
The Court held that the issuance of search warrants by the Public Prosecution, rather than the judiciary, and the conduct of searches without a warrant in specified circumstances, do not violate the cited constitutional provisions. The Court found that Rwandan law provides adequate safeguards and judicial remedies for rights violations during searches, and that the challenged statutory language is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court also held that requests for statutory interpretation or amendment are outside its jurisdiction in a constitutional petition.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a house’s fixtures and fittings are part of immovable property and set aside later conflicting judgments over the same property.
The Court held that the challenged provisions of Law No 83/2013 do not violate Article 15 of the Constitution. The transitional exemption for advocates and judicial defenders with six years of experience was a legitimate legislative choice to address those already practicing under the old law, and judges and prosecutors were not similarly situated. The requirement to pass a test for admission to the Bar Association is justified by the specialized nature of the legal profession and does not constitute unequal treatment, as different professions may be subject to different entry requirements ba…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the challenged provisions do not violate the constitutional principle of equality before the law. The differentiation in requirements for entry into the legal profession is justified by the unique nature of the profession and the need for specific qualifications. Transitional provisions for those already practicing are legitimate and do not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The Court also lacks jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of internal regulations.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed a review-for-injustice application, finding no real contradiction in the High Court judgment and no compensable harm from the Commission’s refusal to hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that transport used as an accessory to BRALIRWA distribution is not VAT-exempt and reinstated the VAT assessment against SRDS Ltd.
Explore more
