31 Jan 2026
Court of Appeal digest on criminal sentencing, evidence, appeals, procedural limits, and the effect of lighter later laws.
15 Jan 2026
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.
30 Dec 2025
The Court of Appeal found that a witness statement created after judgment was not new evidence and refused to reopen the criminal case.
23 Dec 2025
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.
28 Nov 2025
Evidence in a defilement appeal was found inconsistent and insufficient; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused, and ordered his release.
28 Nov 2025
Appeal dismissed in a child-defilement case; medical and circumstantial evidence upheld, with a 15-year prison sentence and RWF 2,000,000 damages maintained.
28 Nov 2025
Appeal dismissed: the Court of Appeal upheld a 16-year sentence for defiling a 4-year-old child and found no basis to further reduce the sentence.
28 Nov 2025
Appeal dismissed in a defilement case; the Court of Appeal upheld conviction and 20-year sentence, relying on consistent victim and medical evidence.
21 Nov 2025
Appeal dismissed in a child-defilement case; the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and 22-year sentence, relying on witness evidence and a medical report.
21 Nov 2025
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.