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 found no clerical errors to correct, but interpreted an amicable settlement to mean Nyiransabimana Elisabeth had lifetime use rights, not full ownership.
Paragraph 4 of Article 161 of Law No 22/2018 does not violate Articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution. The limitation on third-party opposition to judgments of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is justified by the need for finality in litigation, applies equally to all, and does not deprive individuals of access to justice or property rights, as alternative remedies exist.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that article 161(4) of Law No 22/2018 is constitutional and dismissed the petition challenging limits on third-party opposition.
The High Court held that the auction annulment claim was not an urgent proceeding and thus a second appeal was admissible. The property in question had been lawfully acquired by Gruner Jes Nicholas Mphazso, who was a bona fide purchaser and had improved the property. There was no evidence of fraud or collusion by Gruner. The auction was conducted without proper legal basis, as the enforcement officer failed to verify the current ownership and status of the property. Therefore, the auction was annulled and the respondent was ordered to pay costs and attorney fees.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a settlement agreement signed by the parties and the recorded payment resolved the property dispute and terminated the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the Cooperative had no legal basis to seize and retain Kayiranga David's rice without compensation, as the relevant Ministerial Instructions did not grant such authority. The lower courts erred by failing to consider key evidence, including a signed agreement acknowledging the Cooperative's obligation to pay for 6,330 Kg of rice. The applicant's property rights were violated, and he is entitled to compensation for the rice and related damages.
Source excerpt
The auction was annulled because the property was not properly registered as collateral and no valid valuation was conducted or communicated to the owner, violating mandatory legal provisions. These procedural defects rendered the auction void, requiring restoration of the parties to their pre-auction positions.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a cohabitant not formally married could intervene in the prior proceedings and that Musabyemariya Vestine proved ownership of the disputed land.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda partly allowed Faida Amur Sultan’s appeal, upheld liability for confiscating goods, and shifted rent reimbursement to the lease parties.
The Commercial High Court partially allowed DJUMAPILI John’s appeal, holding that his summary application was procedurally proper and that the auction had lapsed in law.
Explore more
