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 High Court upheld the notarized land sale to Kamikazi Fiona, held it prevailed over earlier private agreements, and found no damages were due.
The Court of Appeal held that the notarized sale prevails over an earlier private land sale, and ordered the disputed property registered to the notarized purchasers.
The Commercial High Court dismissed SPERO Ltd’s challenge to an arbitral award, holding the consultancy contract remained valid and its purpose not achieved was not a ground for annulment.
The High Court held that a cooperative’s sale of its coffee factory was a commercial dispute within the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction and dismissed Mwezi Coffee’s appeal.
The alleged gift contract of 31/12/1997 did not meet legal requirements for consent and delivery, was not registered, and was contradicted by evidence. The applicant never possessed or registered the property. The High Court did not decide on unpleaded matters. No injustice occurred.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that BPR’s Kicukiro branch had capacity to contract after fusion, upheld the loan’s validity, and confirmed damages and costs against Mugenzi.
Commercial appeal over a timber trading agreement. The court held an unsigned cession document was not binding, upheld breach damages, and confirmed interim execution.
The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid, finding the appellants contracted personally and that any defect could not be used to annul it after performance.
The contract between RUMANYIKA and RUZINDANA was valid; agreed interest and penalties were enforceable under Rwandan law; lack of spousal signature did not invalidate the contract as family property was not directly at issue; force majeure did not apply as non-performance could have been avoided; interest rate was reduced to 6% per annum as 12% was excessive; court fees and penalties were recalculated and allocated accordingly.
Source excerpt
Explore more
