Rwanda Case Law

MUREMANYUNDO v NYIRIMIHIGO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00031/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that both Law No. 22/99 (1999) and Organic Law No. 8/2005 (2005) applied. However, under Article 22 of Law No. 22/99, the right to challenge a sale of matrimonial property lapses after 5 years. Since Muremanyundo Jeanne filed her claim more than 14 years after the 2006 sale, her right to contest had expired, making the sale agreement irrevocable and valid.

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial property
• Land sale
• Limitation period
• Good faith purchaser
• Revision for injustice

Read case analysis

BIMENYIMANA v NDERERIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2023/SC

The Supreme Court held that a challenge to an auction was filed in time after notification by email, dismissed the review for injustice, and ordered merits hearing to continue.

• Invalidation of auction
• Jurisdiction
• Limitation period
• Notification requirements
• Auction-invalidation
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

BAGARAGAZA N’ABANDI v. SIRWA SARL

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2019/SC

The Supreme Court found a 1997 extraordinary shareholders’ meeting invalid, awarded the claimants share value, unpaid dividends, interest, and legal costs, and granted review for injustice.

• Validity of company resolutions
• Shareholder rights
• Dividends
• Limitation period
• Review for injustice
• Valuation of shares

Read case analysis

TUMUKUNDE v VUGUZIGA

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA 00172/2021/HC/KIG

The court held that although Tumukunde Rehema had a co-ownership interest in the property, she failed to challenge the sale within the five-year statutory period after learning of the transaction. As such, the sale to Vuguziga Hermenegilde became irrevocable by operation of law, and her claim for annulment and damages was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial property
• Co-ownership
• Limitation period
• Sale of immovable property
• Spousal consent

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MAYOBERE_kn

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RPAA0067/15/CS

The Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction over a second criminal appeal and left in place the High Court’s conviction for forgery and use of forged documents.

• Forgery
• Use of forged documents
• Limitation period
• Jurisdiction
• Retroactive application of law
• Criminal-procedure

Read case analysis

GAKWAYA v. KAMINUZA Y’U RWANDA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RADA 0029/11/CS

The applicant's claim was time-barred because the six-month period for filing suit began after the first administrative appeal and expired before the claim was filed; subsequent appeals or waiting for a formal response did not extend or reset the limitation period.

Source excerpt

• Limitation period
• Exhaustion of administrative remedies
• Unlawful dismissal
• Procedural bars

Read case analysis