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 upheld title documents issued after a lawful auction, finding no competent authority had invalidated the sale. BPR Bank’s appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the second appeal inadmissible because the appellant had already lost in the lower courts on the same ground: failure to prove the land’s origin.
The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over a second appeal because the applicant had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The High Court accepted the late appeal because the electronic filing system failed and was reported, but upheld the judicial auction and dismissed the injustice review.
Mugisha Alex was not on a temporary mission but was permanently redeployed to Muhondo branch as evidenced by internal communications and his signed acceptance of the new structure. Therefore, he was not entitled to mission allowances or moral damages. The claim for review on grounds of injustice lacked merit, and BPR Plc was entitled to partial legal costs and attorney fees.
Source excerpt
Mugisha Alex was not on a temporary mission but was permanently redeployed to Muhondo branch as evidenced by written acceptance of redeployment and company restructuring communications. Therefore, he was not entitled to mission allowances or damages. The claim for review on grounds of injustice lacked merit, and BPR Plc was entitled to partial legal costs and attorney fees.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a summary dismissal for gross misconduct can be lawful where the 48-hour notice rule is met. The appeal was dismissed.
The appellants failed to provide any credible evidence that the disputed property was allocated to them as genocide orphans or that the respondent registered it fraudulently. The respondent provided documentary evidence of lawful allocation and registration. The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Rwasabahizi Peter proved lawful origin of the house, ordered title transferred to him, and awarded reimbursement for repairs.
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
Explore more
