Rwanda Case Law

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate persons mentioned during trial does not amount to treating them as accused, nor does it infringe on prosecutorial independence or the separation of powers. The prosecution retains discretion on whether to prosecute after investigation. The provision ensures judicial oversight and the pursuit of justice without undermining constitutional guarantees.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial powers
• Prosecutorial independence
• Criminal investigation
• Constitutional review

Read case analysis

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate individuals mentioned during trial does not amount to judicial encroachment on prosecutorial functions or breach the presumption of innocence. The judiciary does not conduct investigations or dictate prosecutorial outcomes, but acts within its constitutional mandate to ensure justice and complementarity among state organs. The provision is consistent with the separation of powers, prosecutorial independence, and the right to a fair trial.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Presumption of innocence
• Judicial powers
• Prosecutorial independence
• Criminal investigations

Read case analysis

Re MURANGWA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00001/2022/SC

The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to search and seizure rules, holding that warrantless searches and prosecutorial warrants with safeguards were constitutional.

• Search and seizure
• Presumption of innocence
• Separation of powers
• Right to privacy
• Right to fair trial
• Search-and-seizure

Read case analysis

RLR -V.1 - 2020

Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Rwanda upheld most of Law No. 75/2018, but held article 19 unconstitutional for unequal treatment of similarly situated landowners.

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Taxation of property
• Judicial review of legislation
• Public policy
• Separation of powers

Read case analysis

Re AKAGERA BUSINESS GROUP

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS

The prohibition on taxpayers submitting new evidence at appeal level under article 1(5) of Law Nº74/2008 is not inconsistent with articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution because taxpayers are a special category with specific legal obligations. The differentiation is based on legitimate grounds, is proportionate to the aim of effective tax administration, and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination or inequality before the law.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Tax procedure
• Production of evidence
• Appeals
• Separation of powers

Read case analysis

Re AKAGERA BUSINESS GROUP_231817_kn

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS

The Supreme Court held that Article 1(5) of Law Nº74/2008, although it treats taxpayer-defendants differently from other litigants regarding the admissibility of new evidence on appeal, does not violate the constitutional principles of equality before the law or non-discrimination. The differentiation is justified by the unique legal obligations of taxpayers to maintain and present records, and serves the legitimate aim of ensuring effective tax administration. There is no arbitrary or unjustified discrimination, and the measure is proportionate to its purpose.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Tax procedure
• Admissibility of evidence on appeal
• Separation of powers

Read case analysis

ISHYAKA RIHARANIRA DEMOKARASI NO KURENGERA IBIDUKIKIJE MU RWANDA (DGPR) v. LETA Y’U RWANDA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC/0002/15/CS

The Supreme Court of Rwanda rejected a jurisdictional objection and denied amicus curiae status, holding it may hear constitutional interpretation claims.

• Jurisdiction of supreme court
• Interpretation of constitutional provisions
• Amicus curiae
• Preliminary objections
• Separation of powers
• Constitutional-jurisdiction

Read case analysis