Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Rwanda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal held that a unilateral application may only be used where there is no dispute, and set aside judgments based on an irregular filing.
Kabanda purchased the plot before Koperative GOBOKA mortgaged it to BRD. The High Court erred in holding the plot should remain registered to GOBOKA as collateral for BRD. The intervention by BRD was improperly granted as the mortgage was created after the sale. The appeal is allowed in all respects, restoring the prior judgment in Kabanda's favor.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Murangwa Edward had standing to challenge provisions of Rwanda’s investigation and criminal procedure laws, and set the case to continue.
The Court of Appeal held that Mbarushimana’s second appeal was inadmissible because he had lost on the same grounds in the lower courts.
The Court of Appeal held that only a party to the judgment may seek its interpretation or correction, and dismissed SONARWA Life Assurance Company Limited’s application as inadmissible.
The High Court held that an unmarried cohabitant may intervene in a judgment affecting individually owned property, and restored Musabyemariya’s land.
The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction over a voluntary intervenor’s further appeal, because only compelled intervenors may appeal again under the statute.
The applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine public interest as required by law, since ASSAR represents the interests of insurance companies, not the general public, and the supporting expert study did not establish the gravity of the issue or failed attempts to resolve it with the competent authorities. Therefore, the application does not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility of a PIL and is not receivable.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the claim related to succession and property recovery should have first been submitted to a family meeting as required by law. The evidence showed that family meetings had occurred and could still be convened. The lower courts did not err in declining jurisdiction and requiring the matter to be addressed by the family meeting first. Grounds of appeal filed out of time were inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Byansi Samuel Baker, a journalist, had standing to challenge criminal law provisions affecting press freedom and ordered the merits hearing to continue.
Explore more
