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 a second appeal by SHALOM METAL SUPPLY LTD, holding it had no jurisdiction because the alleged conciliation defect did not prove lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal held that Trust For Sustainable Group Ltd’s second appeal was not admissible because it lost below on the same grounds and the damages awarded were below the statutory threshold.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because both lower courts decided the case on the same essential grounds, so it lacked jurisdiction.
The High Court held that VMRL’s agreement with RBA was a lease, not a simple rental service, and set aside RURA’s penalty and licensing order.
The Commercial High Court held BRALIRWA liable for damage caused by its advertising sign, rejecting force majeure and partly increasing the award on appeal.
The High Court held that Nkundumukiza had standing to challenge a district closure decision affecting his leased premises and belongings, set aside the dismissal, and remitted the case.
The High Court held that Nkundumukiza had a personal and direct interest to challenge the administrative closure of the leased premises, set aside the dismissal, and remitted the case.
The appellant failed to prove that Barikunde Joseph or his family had legal title or a valid lease to the disputed land, as prior judgments established ownership in Aslam Mohamed. Since the appellant already settled with the landowner and paid compensation, there is no basis for a further claim against the District. The District cannot be ordered to compensate for property it does not own or control.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court rejected a review for injustice and upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the disputed plot belonged to Rwasimpenzi Wellars.
The Supreme Court dismissed Semapondo Charles’s review application, holding there was no injustice in the Court of Appeal’s judgment and that the disputed plot belongs to Rwasimpenzi Wellars.
Explore more
