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 application for revision is inadmissible because the cited precedent on sentence reduction is not new evidence as defined by law; it does not relate to facts of the crime or establish innocence, but is a legal argument that should have been raised on appeal. The requirements of Article 197(5) are not met.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed Hakizimana John’s application to revise his criminal conviction, holding that the FECOMIRWA audit report was not new decisive evidence.
The Court of Appeal rejected Nizeyimana Aslam’s revision request, holding that a notarized statement did not meet Article 197’s requirements for new evidence.
The High Court held that failing to summon all parties, including the civil party, in criminal revision proceedings is a procedural injustice warranting revision.
The Supreme Court held that civil parties could participate in the appeal and that a letter from a former trial party was not new evidence warranting revision.
The Supreme Court held that proposed defence witnesses were not new evidence and refused revision of a final criminal judgment.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal against jurisdiction may be joined with the merits, but a judgment revised on new grounds is not appealable.
The Supreme Court held that a receipt known to the accused during trial was not new evidence and dismissed the revision request.
Explore more
