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 Supreme Court held that Radiant Insurance Company Ltd could not recover compensation paid to an accident victim from the motorcycle owner absent proof of intentional fault.
The Supreme Court held that the insurer could not recover from the insured the indemnity paid to an accident victim where the accident was caused by a borrower driving the motorcycle while intoxicated.
SANLAM AG Plc did not provide conclusive evidence that the fire was caused by EUCL Ltd's conduct. The technical and factual record did not establish, without doubt, that EUCL Ltd's wiring was the source of the fire. Therefore, MUA Insurance Rwanda Ltd, as EUCL Ltd's insurer, is not liable for the sums previously awarded. Restitution of amounts paid is ordered.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal held the second appeal inadmissible because the applicant lost in the lower courts on the same grounds, and awarded limited costs.
The Commercial High Court dismissed Bollore’s appeal and upheld subrogation recovery by Prime Insurance after indemnifying Horizon Logistics for cargo fire losses.
The Supreme Court held SANLAM AG Plc was not liable for an accident caused by a cyclist, reversed prior judgments, and ordered repayment of compensation.
The High Court held that the dispute was commercial, not insurance-related, and that the Intermediate Court of Karongi lacked jurisdiction because the claim was below the primary court threshold.
Liability to reimburse the insurer for compensation paid after a traffic accident attaches to the actual possessor and user of the vehicle at the time of the accident, even if the vehicle remains registered to another. The sale was effective between Uwajeneza and Niyonagize, and Niyonagize, as possessor and driver, is liable to reimburse Radiant Insurance Company for the amount paid to the accident victim.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Dayenu Hotel’s supplementary claim was civil and admissible, but it lacked legal basis to seek reimbursement from BRD Plc.
The Supreme Court held that an insurance contract for performance bonds was validly extended by an avenant and additional premium, allowing SORAS to recover sums paid.
Explore more
