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 held that Benda Rosine’s second appeal was inadmissible because she had lost in the lower courts on the same grounds. Costs were awarded to the district.
The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over a second appeal because the disputed property value, excluding expropriated land, fell below 75,000,000 Frw.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was not admissible because no lower court had awarded damages of at least 75,000,000 Frw.
The Court found that both lower courts dismissed applicant's claims on the same substantive ground—failure to prove origin of the disputed land—making the second appeal inadmissible under Article 52(3) Law No 30/2018. Differences in evidence or statutes cited do not alter the sameness of the grounds.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same legal grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the applicant lost in both lower courts on the same grounds, and awarded costs to Bayingana.
The Court of Appeal held that AB Bank Rwanda PLC’s second appeal was inadmissible because the lower courts decided the dispute on the same grounds.
The Court of Appeal upheld a jurisdictional objection and struck out RRA’s second appeal, finding it had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The Court of Appeal found that GAPCO lost in both lower courts on the same essential ground: failure to prove legal ownership of the disputed land. Both courts determined that GAPCO's evidence (Acte de notoriété, administrative certificates) did not establish a valid transfer or registration of title. As the legal and factual issues were the same in both lower courts, the appeal was inadmissible under Article 52(3) of Law No 30/2018. The Court of Appeal therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that second-appeal jurisdiction depends on damages actually awarded below, not the amount claimed by the appellant.
Explore more
