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 held there was no genuine dispute in the execution of an earlier commercial judgment and dismissed the application, awarding 500,000 Frw in attorney fees.
The Court of Appeal dismissed FEV Co Ltd’s appeal and upheld the order to refund part of an advance payment in a commercial contract dispute.
The Supreme Court dismissed TSC’s extraordinary appeal and upheld payment of the outstanding contract balance, TVA, and litigation costs to GMS.
The Court of Appeal found the 12/07/2001 document did not prove an employment contract between Ndahimana and EDPR, and dismissed his claims.
The Court of Appeal accepted Umazekabiri Nathan Edison’s withdrawal of the appeal and refused Mukagatana Béatrice’s request for attorney fees.
The appeal by Uwantege Louise was filed outside the three-working-day period mandated by Article 188 of Law No 22/2018 for expedited claims, which is a special rule overriding the general calculation in Article 275. Consequently, the appeal is without merit. The cross-appeal by Nizeyimana Venant is inadmissible since the principal appeal was not received. Respondents are entitled to attorney fees and costs as the applicant's appeal was unsuccessful.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Ntaganira Cyrille’s review application, holding that he had already received court-awarded attorney fees and could not enforce a prohibited contingency-fee agreement.
The appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the lower court's judgment or provide evidence of payment of 60,000,000 Frw. The contract was invalidated and not appealed, thus cannot be a basis for interest or damages. The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
Source excerpt
Kazora failed to demonstrate any error in the lower court's judgment or provide evidence of payment of 60,000,000 Frw. The contract was nullified and thus cannot generate restitution or interest. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal was inadmissible because the applicants had already lost on the same grounds in two lower courts, and the exclusivity clause did not relieve them from the obligation to repay the loan. No evidence was provided that METCORP Ltd breached the exclusivity clause. The applicants are liable for the loan, interests, and litigation costs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
