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 UBUZIMA Polyclinic Ltd’s second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was not receivable because the appellants had lost on the same jurisdiction issue in the lower courts. It also declined the respondent’s cross-appeal.
The Court of Appeal held APADEM’s appeal inadmissible, finding the appellants had lost in the lower courts on the same grounds, and awarded BRD costs.
The Supreme Court partly allowed review, ordering deregistration and re-registration of the disputed property to enable mortgage registration, but refused an order for any undetermined loan balance.
The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, rejected speculative loss-of-profit claims, and adjusted restitution after an annulled auction.
The Court of Appeal held that Bank of Kigali Plc’s second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost on the same grounds in the lower courts.
The Court of Appeal held that METAFOAM Ltd’s second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same essential ground.
The Supreme Court held that the loan agreement provided for a lump-sum late payment interest of 300,000 Frw, not a monthly interest, and that further interest should be calculated at the statutory average lending rate from the date of default to the date of judgment. There was no evidence of shareholder fraud or misuse of company assets, so shareholders could not be held jointly liable. Damages and legal costs were only partially awarded based on the outcome.
Source excerpt
SOCOBICO Industries S.A. failed to prove that any of its business assets are currently possessed by ROBA Industries Ltd or were transferred through the chain of transactions originating from the auction. The right of follow-up applies only if the assets can be specifically identified, which SOCOBICO did not do. Therefore, no order for return of assets can be made against ROBA Industries Ltd. However, to clarify the composition and value of business assets to be returned by Trust Industries Ltd as per the 2013 Supreme Court judgment, an accounting expert must be appointed to identify and value…
Source excerpt
Explore more
