Rwanda Case Law

BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA PLC v. AKARERE KA NYAMASHEKE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that while the applicable law (Article 78 of Law No. 12/2007) prescribes 1% daily interest for late payment of public procurement guarantees, the resulting sum (639,923,932 Frw) was manifestly excessive compared to the principal (19,935,235 Frw) and the actual loss. The Court exercised its discretion to reduce the interest to an amount equal to the guarantee, preventing unjust enrichment and aligning with principles of proportionality and fairness.

Source excerpt

• State contracts
• Performance guarantees
• Delay penalties
• Interest on late payment
• Judicial review
• Retroactivity of law

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. MUREKATETE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00019/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal held that intent to sell cannabis was enough for trafficking, even without a buyer present, but reduced sentence because later drug-classification rules could not be applied retroactively.

• Drug trafficking
• Sentencing
• Statutory interpretation
• Retroactivity of law
• Drug-trafficking
• Retroactivity

Read case analysis

RWANDA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (RDB) v. NANIYA SEBIRIBIRI N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCAA 00016/2020/CA

The Court of Appeal held that the old civil code applied because the harmful act and claim arose before repeal, and it dismissed RDB’s appeal as inadmissible.

• Retroactivity of law
• Employer liability
• Abrogation of statutes
• Transitional provisions
• Civil damages
• Retroactivity-of-law

Read case analysis

Re. MURANGWA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/ 2019/SC

Article 16 and 17 of Law N° 75/2018 do not contravene articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as the differentiation in tax rates is based on legitimate public policy objectives and does not amount to prohibited discrimination. Article 19 is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution because it imposes unequal tax treatment on similarly situated landowners based solely on the date of acquisition, lacking a legitimate ground. Article 20 does not contravene articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution as the additional tax on undeveloped land serves a legitimate public interest, with safeguards…

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Taxation of property
• Right to property
• Retroactivity of law
• Public policy

Read case analysis