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 dismissed an appeal against refusal to admit intervention, holding that intervention is unavailable unless the underlying case was decided on the merits and is no longer appealable.
Court of Appeal held Kabirigi Gérard’s revision-for-injustice claim was admissible despite no second appeal, because a second appeal would have been inadmissible on the same grounds.
Article 129, paragraph 3 of Law N0 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution because it differentiates between parties based on their procedural posture for justified and reasonable grounds, specifically to avoid unnecessary dilatory proceedings. The party whose objection is dismissed is not in the same situation as the party against whom the objection is admitted, and both retain the right to appeal at appropriate stages. This differentiation does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination or denial of the right to appear before a competent court.
Source excerpt
Article 129, paragraph 3 of Law N0 22/2018 does not violate the Constitution because the differentiation between parties regarding the timing of appeals is based on justified and reasonable grounds, namely the avoidance of unnecessary dilatory proceedings. The parties are not in the same procedural situation, and the law provides adequate appeal rights in both scenarios. Therefore, there is no unconstitutional inequality or deprivation of the right to appear before a competent court.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a joint venture member may sue only for its own share, not the full joint venture debt, and dismissed Benedetta Group Ltd’s appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Uwimana Catherine’s appeal, holding that she did not identify errors in the High Court’s refusal to admit her urgent application.
The Court of Appeal held that a preliminary objection to admissibility must be decided first, and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.
The Supreme Court held that a revision application based on new evidence was filed out of time because notice was deemed given when the document was uploaded to IECMS.
The Court of Appeal held that a succession dispute had to be first submitted to the family council, set aside prior judgments, and dismissed the claim as inadmissible.
The claim was inadmissible because the underlying judgments were not final; appeals and procedural corrections were still possible, and thus the legal requirements for resolving conflicting judgments were not met.
Source excerpt
Explore more
