Rwanda Case Law

MUTWARE v. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (RWANDA) Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00002/2022/SC–

Mutware Jean de Dieu proved he performed the same work as the prior Cash Management Officer but was paid less. GT Bank Rwanda Plc failed to provide objective and reasonable grounds for the salary difference. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the unpaid net salary difference for 17 months, recalculated notice allowance and termination benefits based on the correct gross salary, and awarded counsel fees.

Source excerpt

• Equal pay
• Salary discrimination
• Termination benefits
• Notice allowance
• Counsel fees

Read case analysis

MUTWARE v. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (RWANDA) Ltd

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00002/2022/SC

The applicant proved he performed the same work as his predecessor at the Cash Management Officer position but was paid less. The employer failed to provide objective and reasonable grounds for the salary disparity and did not produce evidence to justify the difference. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the salary difference for 17 months, recalculated notice allowance and termination benefits based on the higher salary, and awarded counsel's fees. The court reaffirmed that net salary, not gross, is payable for such claims.

Source excerpt

• Equal pay for equal work
• Salary discrimination
• Wrongful dismissal
• Burden of proof in discrimination
• Calculation of termination benefits
• Production of evidence

Read case analysis

SONARWA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD v RUGINA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00001/2022/SC

The Supreme Court held that the application for review due to injustice lacked merit because the applicant failed to appeal certain grounds within the legal time limit and did not demonstrate any injustice in the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Court confirmed that the respondent was entitled to equal pay for equal work as Branch Manager, that his salary claims were not prescribed due to continuous claims, and that damages and other awards were properly calculated based on net salary. The employer failed to justify salary disparities among employees at the same level.

Source excerpt

• Equal pay for equal work
• Unlawful dismissal
• Salary discrimination
• Prescription of salary claims
• Damages for wrongful termination
• Procedural requirements for review

Read case analysis

SONARWA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD v RUGINA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00001/2022/SC

The Supreme Court dismissed SONARWA’s review application, upheld equal pay principles, found no salary prescription, and sustained the Court of Appeal’s award.

• Equal pay for equal work
• Salary discrimination
• Unlawful dismissal
• Prescription of salary claims
• Damages for unlawful termination
• Procedural requirements for labour disputes

Read case analysis