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
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwasanze igihano cya 15 cy’imyaka cyari gito gishoboka ku cyaha cyo gusambanya umwana no kubana na we, bityo ubujurire ntibufite ishingiro.
The Court of Appeal held that Murorunkwere Jeanne’s second appeal was inadmissible because she had lost in the lower courts on the same core issue.
The High Court held that the property registered as UPI:1/02/10/03/1220 was acquired and developed during the cohabitation of Umuhire Immaculée and Mbabariye Emmanuel, and thus should be divided equally between them. The 50% share of Mbabariye Emmanuel, as admitted in his own writings, was given as a gift to Musabyeyezu Constance, which she accepted. The property acquired with Twagirumwami Charles, though not registered, was also found to have been properly claimed and should be divided equally between Umuhire and Mbabariye. Compensation for litigation costs was awarded to Umuhire.
Source excerpt
The High Court found that the property in dispute was acquired during the period of cohabitation between Nsengiyumva Alexis and Nyirantezimana Marie, and thus subject to equal division under Article 39 of Law No 59/2008. The appellant failed to provide credible evidence to rebut the respondent's timeline or acquisition of property. The award of legal costs and attorney fees to the respondent was justified as the appellant was found to be the cause of the litigation. The appellant's counter-claim for compensation was rejected. The new claim for child support was inadmissible at the appellate s…
Source excerpt
The court found sufficient evidence that the parties cohabited as husband and wife and jointly owned the property registered under both names. Therefore, the property must be divided equally. The lower court's decision on property division was overturned, but its finding on lack of jurisdiction for child maintenance was upheld.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal found that Kanobana Eddy and Dukuze Betty cohabited as husband and wife in a stable and continuous manner from 1995 to 2020, and that the disputed properties were acquired during this period. Under Article 39 of Law N˚59/2008, both parties are entitled to equal rights in property acquired during cohabitation, regardless of formal marriage or proof of individual contributions. The properties must remain jointly registered, and Dukuze Betty must compensate Kanobana Eddy for legal costs incurred at the appellate level.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that Makuza failed to prove cohabitation as husband and wife or joint acquisition of property, so her claim to divide the house and vehicle was dismissed.
Cohabitation and joint efforts, whether monetary or non-monetary, entitle both parties to equal division of property acquired during the relationship, regardless of formal marriage or individual financial contribution. Compensation is awarded for proven harm and litigation costs.
Source excerpt
Tesire Généreuse failed to prove contribution to the Rwamagana house, so she has no share. Uzamushaka Consolée, as sole inheritor, must pay the debt owed by Gatete Côme to Mukarusanganwa Verediane. Legal fees and costs are awarded to Mukarusanganwa Verediane.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal held that property had to be split by each cohabiting union and that sales by heirs remained valid for the share they controlled.
Explore more
