Rwanda Case Law

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

Article 81, paragraph 2, of Law No 22/2018 is unconstitutional as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the charges, to defend themselves, and to be represented by counsel, contrary to Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The absence of a hearing before summary punishment for contempt in court violates fair trial guarantees. However, paragraph 1 of Article 81 does not contravene the Constitution regarding the allocation of jurisdiction or the right to appeal, as statutory law permits the court where contempt occurs to try the offence, and the limitation on appeal from the Supreme…

Source excerpt

• Fair trial rights
• Contempt of court
• Judicial independence
• Right to legal representation
• Right to be informed of charges
• Right to appeal

Read case analysis

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution regarding jurisdiction, right to appear before a competent court, right to appeal, public hearings, or prohibition of self-judging. However, Article 81, paragraph two, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, the right to defence, and the right to legal representation. The unconstitutional portion is declared without effect and replaced with a procedure ensuring these rights.

Source excerpt

• Due process
• Contempt of court
• Right to fair trial
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings
• Right to legal representation

Read case analysis

GAKIRE v. NDAGIJIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00015/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that Gakire Pascal, being present at the hearing and judgment delivery, was deemed notified on the date of judgment and was required to file his appeal and grounds within three working days. His failure to do so rendered the appeal inadmissible. The Court further found no justification for the delay based on the alleged late receipt of the judgment copy. Attorney fees and costs were awarded to the respondent as the prevailing party.

Source excerpt

• Appeal deadlines
• Auction procedure
• Right to legal representation
• Costs and attorney fees

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NTAKIRUTIMANA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RPA 0197/10/CS

The Supreme Court dismissed Ntakirutimana’s appeal, upholding his conviction and sentence, and finding no denial of the constitutional right to counsel or basis for extra compensation.

• Right to legal representation
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure
• Murder
• Armed robbery
• Compensation for victims

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. KAMONYO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RPA0073/09/CS

The Supreme Court nullified the prior judgment for denial of counsel, then re-evaluated the evidence and convicted Kamonyo of conspiracy resulting in homicide.

• Right to legal representation
• Conspiracy resulting in homicide
• Mitigating circumstances
• Nullification of judgment for procedural violation
• Right-to-counsel
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis