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 revision application, upheld the prior land judgment, and ordered correction of lease records to match the original allocated plot sizes.
The Supreme Court found conflicting final judgments over the same land dispute, set aside the later High Court decision, and upheld the earlier judgment and Abunzi decision.
The Court of Appeal held that Benda Rosine’s second appeal was inadmissible because both lower courts dismissed her claim on the same grounds.
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 Dushimimana Blaise proved a traceable title to the disputed land parcel, while Ufitingabire BĂ©atrice did not link her claim to the specific parcel.
The Court of Appeal held that although the applicant lost in both lower courts, the defeats were not based on the same grounds because the High Court considered a new issue (the contradiction between two pieces of evidence from Jumelage Rhénanie-Palatinat) that was not addressed at first instance. Therefore, the jurisdictional objection was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Kanakuze Valentine failed to provide evidence that the 4 meters behind her fence belonged to her; the area in question is an access road to Usengimana Jean d’Amour’s property, and the original trial court’s decision stands.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the land was lawfully sold by the deceased husband in accordance with the law applicable at the time, which vested management and disposal authority in the husband as head of household. The absence of written contracts did not invalidate the sales, as oral agreements and witness testimony were sufficient under then-prevailing law. The applicant failed to prove any miscarriage of justice or legal error in the prior decisions. The costs and damages previously awarded against her were justified due to her unsuccessful and unfounded litigation.
Source excerpt
The court found that the land in dispute was sold by the applicant's late husband in accordance with the law and custom prevailing at the time, with no credible evidence of unlawful dispossession or lack of spousal representation. The applicant failed to prove her claims, and the prior judgments awarding the land to the respondents and imposing costs and damages on the applicant remain valid.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the land was sold by the applicant's late husband in accordance with the law and custom prevailing at the time, that the applicant's lack of written consent did not invalidate the sale, that the respondents acquired the land in good faith, and that the applicant's claims were unfounded. The prior judgments were upheld, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs and attorney fees.
Source excerpt
Explore more
