Rwanda Case Law

Re MURANGWA (SPEC-ADD)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that Murangwa Edward has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the impugned statutory provisions because the laws in question apply to all persons in Rwanda, including the applicant, and may affect his fundamental rights. The Court reaffirmed that standing in constitutional litigation is interpreted broadly, and it is sufficient if the applicant is among those affected by the law, without the need to show actual harm. The Court also recognized standing for public interest litigation and for advocates acting in the interest of justice.

Source excerpt

• Standing to challenge legislation
• Constitutionality of statutes
• Rights of accused persons
• Search and seizure
• Media and privacy
• Public interest litigation

Read case analysis

Volume Special 1

Court

Supreme Court

ASSAR's petition was dismissed as inadmissible because it failed to demonstrate a legitimate general interest, did not provide an expert study report evidencing the gravity of the issue or failed resolution attempts, and did not show the consequences of the absence of a minimum wage on the general public. The Court held that the requirements for public interest litigation under article 80 of Law no 30/2018 were not met.

Source excerpt

• Minimum wage
• Public interest litigation
• Administrative orders
• Judicial review

Read case analysis

Volime Idasanzwe 1

Court

Supreme Court

The applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine public interest as required by law, since ASSAR represents the interests of insurance companies, not the general public, and the supporting expert study did not establish the gravity of the issue or failed attempts to resolve it with the competent authorities. Therefore, the application does not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility of a PIL and is not receivable.

Source excerpt

• Minimum wage
• Public interest litigation
• Standing
• Social rights

Read case analysis

RLR V.1 - 2021

Court

Supreme Court

ASSAR failed to demonstrate a legitimate public interest as required by law, as it primarily represented the interests of insurance companies rather than the general public. The annexed study did not meet statutory requirements for an expert report, lacking evidence of seriousness, failed resolution attempts, and consequences. Therefore, the petition was inadmissible.

Source excerpt

• Public interest litigation
• Minimum wage
• Admissibility
• Standing
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

ASSOCIATION DES ASSUREURS DU RWANDA (ASSAR) v. LETA Y’U RWANDA (MIFOTRA)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/PIL/SPEC 00001/2019/SC

ASSAR failed to demonstrate that its claim represented the public interest as required by law, as its interests were limited to insurance companies and not the general public. The supporting study did not meet the statutory requirements for expert analysis or demonstrate the gravity and impact of the absence of a minimum wage on the public. Therefore, the claim was inadmissible under Article 80 of Law No. 30/2018.

Source excerpt

• Public interest litigation
• Minimum wage
• Standing to sue
• Labour rights
• Admissibility of claims

Read case analysis

ASSOCIATION DES ASSUREURS DU RWANDA (ASSAR) v. GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA (MIFOTRA)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/PIL/SPEC 00001/2019/SC

The Supreme Court of Rwanda dismissed ASSAR’s public interest petition on minimum wage implementation, finding it did not meet admissibility requirements.

• Public interest litigation
• Minimum wage
• Standing
• Admissibility of petitions
• Labour regulation
• Public-interest-litigation

Read case analysis

Re MUGISHA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00002/2018/SC

The Supreme Court held that Me Mugisha Richard had standing to challenge parts of Law N°68/2018 and that the State could not raise a preliminary objection as a party.

• Standing in constitutional litigation
• Public interest litigation
• Constitutionality of statutes
• Access to justice
• Standing-in-constitutional-litigation
• Public-interest-litigation

Read case analysis

RE_MUGISHA___Constitutional_petition__419490_en

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00002/2018/SC

The Supreme Court held that a petitioner challenging the constitutionality of a law need not prove personal harm where the petition is brought in the public interest.

• Standing in constitutional petitions
• Unconstitutionality of laws
• Public interest litigation
• Admissibility of petitions
• Constitutional-law
• Standing

Read case analysis