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
A Court of Appeal precedents collection summarizing criminal, civil, tax, and procedure rulings from July-August 2022, including sentencing, evidence, contracts, and appeal rules.
The Court of Appeal partially granted review for injustice, ordering UNESCOM to refund excess payment proved by evidence, but rejecting other damages claims.
The Court of Appeal partly allowed an injustice review, ordering UNESCOM to refund Niyivuga Mansula 31,380,624 Frw as excess payment under the vehicle contract.
The Court of Appeal held the sale contract was unfair and should not be enforced, ordered no mutation, and directed refund of the price plus 18% interest.
The Supreme Court dismissed a review claim in a loan dispute, held the principal debt was USD 50,000, found no unlawful excessive interest, and upheld the prior judgment.
The Court of Appeal found the landlord unlawfully terminated the lease, upheld compensation for improvements, and reversed part of the damages awarded below.
The sale by Nsangineza to Kayitsinga was null as Nsangineza was not the owner. However, Kayitsinga acquired the property in good faith, unaware of the defect at the time of purchase. Therefore, Kanyamibwa is entitled to restitution of the property, but must compensate Kayitsinga for the value of improvements made in good faith. Nsangineza, as the fraudulent seller, must refund the purchase price to Kayitsinga and pay damages to Kanyamibwa.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a buyer who improved immovable property later returned to the true owners is entitled to reimbursement for necessary and useful works, but not beautification works.
The Supreme Court held that Mugenga Joseph is entitled to compensation for useful improvements made to the property, regardless of his knowledge of the seller's lack of title, as denying compensation would result in unjust enrichment of the current owners. Compensation for new constructions (the 'annexe') is subject to agreement; if not retained, Mugenga Joseph may remove it. Compensation for loss of use is awarded to the owners for the period they were deprived of their property.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held GT BANK liable for paying 19,000,000 rwf to the wrong account and apportioned damages against GT BANK and Uzabumwana, while maintaining the principal loan debt.
Explore more
