Rwanda Case Law

SANLAM v RWAMIRERA

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA00086/2022/HC/MUS

The appellate court held that the 10% disability report could not be considered because it was not presented at first instance, and that compensation for loss of earning capacity was not justified without proof of employment. The damages for loss of earning capacity were therefore removed, and the remaining damages upheld. No costs or attorney fees were awarded in appeal as both parties partially succeeded.

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Bodily injury damages
• Loss of earning capacity
• Admissibility of evidence on appeal
• Costs and attorney fees

Read case analysis

SANLAM v RWAMIRERA

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA00086/2022/HC/MUS

The High Court partially allowed SANLAM’s appeal, struck out loss-of-earnings damages, upheld the other damages, and dismissed the cross-appeal.

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Bodily injury damages
• Loss of earnings
• Admissibility of evidence on appeal
• Costs and attorney fees
• Motor-vehicle-accident-compensation

Read case analysis

Re AKAGERA BUSINESS GROUP

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS

The Supreme Court held that Article 1(5) of Law No74/2008 does not violate the constitutional principles of equality before the law or non-discrimination. The differentiation between tax defendants and other litigants is justified by the unique legal obligations of taxpayers to maintain and present records during audits. The restriction serves a legitimate purpose in ensuring effective tax administration and does not amount to prohibited discrimination or unequal treatment under the Constitution.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Tax procedure
• Admissibility of evidence on appeal

Read case analysis

Re AKAGERA BUSINESS GROUP_231817_kn

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/SPEC/0001/16/CS

The Supreme Court held that Article 1(5) of Law Nº74/2008, although it treats taxpayer-defendants differently from other litigants regarding the admissibility of new evidence on appeal, does not violate the constitutional principles of equality before the law or non-discrimination. The differentiation is justified by the unique legal obligations of taxpayers to maintain and present records, and serves the legitimate aim of ensuring effective tax administration. There is no arbitrary or unjustified discrimination, and the measure is proportionate to its purpose.

Source excerpt

• Equality before the law
• Non-discrimination
• Tax procedure
• Admissibility of evidence on appeal
• Separation of powers

Read case analysis