Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA v HAKORIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00748/2025/CA

The appellate court held that the High Court did not err in imposing a 15-year sentence, as it exercised its discretion within the law, considering the gravity of the offence, the relationship between the accused and the victim, and the impact on the victim. The law does not require the court to follow the prosecution's sentencing request unless plea bargaining procedures are used. The sentence was sufficiently reduced for mitigating circumstances, and no legal error or abuse of discretion was shown.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Sexual offences
• Child protection
• Appeals

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v NDAGIJE

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/REV/RP 00002/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that a written witness statement created after the prior judgment was not new evidence and rejected the revision application.

• Revision on new evidence
• Sexual offences
• Child protection
• Criminal-procedure
• Revision-on-new-evidence
• Appellate-review

Read case analysis

BIENVENU v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/REV/RP 00067/2024/CA

The applicant's alleged new evidence (trial transcript) is not new, as he was present and signed it at trial. The grounds do not meet the statutory requirements for review. The application is inadmissible.

Source excerpt

• Sexual offences
• Review of judgments
• New evidence
• Ultra petita
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

NDAYAMBAJE v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00172/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal allowed Ndayambaje Emmanuel’s appeal, finding the evidence insufficient to prove defilement beyond reasonable doubt and entering an acquittal.

• Defilement
• Sexual offences
• Standard of proof
• Evidence assessment
• Reasonable doubt
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

HAKIZIMANA v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00264/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed Hakizimana’s appeal against a 15-year sentence for defilement of a minor, upholding the medical and circumstantial evidence and damages award.

• Defilement of a minor
• Standards of proof
• Medical evidence
• Burden of proof
• Sexual offences
• Damages to victim

Read case analysis

MANIRANZI v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00285/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Maniranzi Vainqueur’s 16-year sentence for defilement of a 4-year-old child would not be further reduced and dismissed the appeal.

• Sexual offences
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Child protection
• Criminal-law
• Sexual-offences

Read case analysis

UZABAKIRIHO HAKIZIMANA v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 01291/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed the accused’s appeal, upholding the 20-year sentence for defilement after finding the medical and witness evidence consistent and reliable.

• Sexual offences
• Defilement
• Evidence in criminal trials
• Appeals
• Criminal-law
• Sexual-offences

Read case analysis

SEBANANI v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00299/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed Sebanani Severin’s appeal against a child-defilement conviction, holding the evidence was sufficient and no forensic test on him was required.

• Sexual offences
• Child protection
• Evidence in criminal trials
• Appeals
• Criminal-law
• Sexual-offences

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. HAKUZIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 01358/2024/CA

The appeal lacked merit because the conviction was based on a combination of the child victim’s testimony, corroborating statements from the mother and other witnesses, a medical report, and an apology message from the appellant. The court found no legal or factual basis to overturn the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and properly assessed.

Source excerpt

• Sexual offences
• Evidence assessment
• Child witness testimony
• Appeals procedure

Read case analysis

NDATIMANA v. UBUSHINJACYAHA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00558/2022/CA

Appeal grounds submitted by applicant were not accepted as they were filed after the statutory deadline, and no valid justification was provided for the delay; therefore, prior judgment and sentence remain unchanged.

Source excerpt

• Sexual offences
• Statutory rape
• Appeal deadlines
• Procedural compliance

Read case analysis