Rwanda Case Law

UBUSHINJACYAHA v UWIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00106/2020/CA

The accused completed the offense of armed robbery by entering the house, breaking the lock with a weapon, gathering and appropriating items, and being apprehended in the act. The fact that the stolen items were recovered does not reduce the offense to an attempt. The minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment is mandatory and cannot be further reduced, and confession at the appeal stage does not justify mitigation.

Source excerpt

• Armed robbery
• Attempted robbery
• Sentencing
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NDIKUBWIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA00140/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ndikubwimana Vedaste alias Gasenda’s appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence for armed robbery and intentional assault.

• Assault
• Intentional bodily harm
• Armed robbery
• Standard of proof
• Evaluation of evidence
• Appeals

Read case analysis

THE PROSECUTION V. SULULU MARUGIRA ET AL.

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00248/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld armed robbery convictions but reduced each accused’s sentence to eight years and a fine of 5,000,000 Rwf.

• Armed robbery
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure
• Armed-robbery
• Mitigating-circumstances

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. SULULU MARUGIRA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00248/2021/CA

The tools carried by the accused (scie à métaux and fer à béton) qualify as weapons under the relevant criminal statutes, making the offense aggravated robbery. However, considering their first-time offender status, remorse, lack of significant harm, and their young age, the sentence should be reduced to eight years' imprisonment and a fine of five million Rwandan francs each.

Source excerpt

• Armed robbery
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Interpretation of 'weapon' in robbery
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. SULULU MARUGIRA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00248/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld armed robbery convictions but reduced each appellant’s sentence to 8 years and a 5,000,000 Frw fine, relying on mitigating circumstances.

• Armed robbery
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Interpretation of 'weapon' in robbery
• Appeal procedure
• Armed-robbery

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v IRADUKUNDA N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00184/2021/CA-CMB RPAA 00185/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences of Iradukunda Pacifique and Hagenimana Alexis Alias Nyinya to 12 years and 6 months each, finding further mitigation was justified.

• Sentencing
• Appeal
• Mitigating circumstances
• Attempted murder
• Armed robbery
• Criminal-sentencing

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NSENGIYUMVA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00521/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal upheld an armed robbery conviction against Nsengiyumva Vianney bita Kideri but reduced his sentence to 8 years and a 1,250,000 Frw fine.

• Armed robbery
• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Appeal procedure
• Armed-robbery
• Criminal-appeal

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v BIKORIMANA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RPAA 00716/2021/CA

The Court of Appeal further reduced Bikorimana Théogène’s armed-robbery sentence, applying mitigating circumstances and a newer, more lenient sentencing law.

• Sentencing
• Mitigating circumstances
• Armed robbery
• Appeal procedure
• Mitigating-circumstances
• Armed-robbery

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA v. NZARORA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RPAA 0127/12/CS

The Supreme Court upheld Nzarora Jean Claude’s conviction and life sentence, holding that voluntary intoxication did not excuse the crime and the robbery evidence was sufficient.

• Intoxication as a defense
• Armed robbery
• Murder
• Sentencing mitigation
• Evidentiary standards
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

PROSECUTOR vs Nambajimana

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RPAA 0323/11/CS

The Supreme Court held that the accused's confession before Judicial Police and Prosecution, corroborated by other evidence and not rebutted by proof of coercion or threat, was sufficient for conviction. The new penal code, providing a lesser penalty, must be applied, resulting in a reduced sentence.

Source excerpt

• Armed robbery
• Confession
• Burden of proof
• Application of new penal code
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis