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 Supreme Court annulled an auction of Ndererimana Gédéon’s property for failed notice and publication requirements, and ordered compensation for a good-faith purchaser’s improvements.
The Supreme Court partly allowed review and adjusted only the compensation for improvements made to property bought in good faith from an unauthorized seller.
The Supreme Court held that the plot remained Mukandori’s because no valid written land transfer existed, but Kayitesi owned the house she built and had to be compensated.
The Court of Appeal held that land sold by a non-owner passed no title, but good-faith purchasers had to be compensated for their improvements before returning the property.
The Court found that the 1998 sale agreement between Nyamwasa and Hakizimana, though lacking the original, was corroborated by credible witness testimony and forensic evidence discredited the 1999 agreement presented by Turikumwenimana. Therefore, Nyamwasa is the rightful purchaser. However, since Turikumwenimana possessed and improved the property for over 21 years, he is entitled to retain the house upon paying Nyamwasa compensation for the land value and reasonable rent for the period of occupation.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the provisional execution ordered by the High Commercial Court was lawful because TRAFIPRO Ltd expressly admitted in court to owing 24,221,533 Frw for improvements made by Michael FIETZEK, which constitutes a debt under Article 237 of Law No 22/2018. The subject matter was not immovable property but the value of improvements, and thus the requirements for provisional execution were met. The appeal by TRAFIPRO Ltd lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The respondents failed to produce the original sale documents, which was the only conclusive evidence to resolve the dispute. Without this, the court could not find the sale valid. However, improvements made by Mukamazimpaka Thacienne increased the property's value and must be compensated, even if she possessed the property without valid title. Applicants are entitled to damages for loss of use, calculated as rent for 12 years from each respondent. Legal costs are awarded to the applicants as the prevailing parties.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found Busoro Gervais was the sole owner of the property, the registration and sale by his son was fraudulent, and the buyers acted in good faith but must return the property. The buyers are entitled to a refund of the purchase price from Busoro Mugunga Désiré. No compensation is due for alleged improvements as there was no evidence. The procedural objections to review for injustice were dismissed as unfounded.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Mugenga Joseph is entitled to compensation for useful improvements made to the property, regardless of his knowledge of the seller's lack of title, as denying compensation would result in unjust enrichment of the current owners. Compensation for new constructions (the 'annexe') is subject to agreement; if not retained, Mugenga Joseph may remove it. Compensation for loss of use is awarded to the owners for the period they were deprived of their property.
Source excerpt
The parcel No. 2815 is owned by Rwogera Rutinywa, as evidenced by the purchase agreement in his name and lack of proof it was bought with family funds. The valuation of Rutabingwa Chrysante's buildings at 19,870,998 Frw, as determined by mutually agreed experts, is binding. Rutabingwa Chrysante built in good faith and is entitled to compensation for his improvements, but not to registration of the land or further damages.
Source excerpt
Explore more
