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 held that fraudulent procurement guarantees required termination of the contract and award, ordered return of the advance payment, and reversed prior judgments.
The Court of Appeal accepted PYRAMIDES MINERALS SUPPLY Ltd’s withdrawal of its appeal and ordered it to pay Akarere ka Nyamasheke 700,000 Frw in costs.
The Court of Appeal held that EADECO was not defeated on the same grounds in both lower courts, so its second appeal was admissible.
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction because the damages awarded to Mutabazi Steven in the appealed judgment (FRW 31,791,476) do not meet the statutory threshold of FRW 75,000,000 required for appellate jurisdiction. Only the damages awarded to the appellant and challenged on appeal are relevant for jurisdictional assessment.
Source excerpt
Exclusion of Maxwell Ltd and Mpagazehe Robert from public tenders was unlawful because the forged notary stamps/signatures were not required by the tender documents and did not provide an undue advantage; contract terminations by Gakenke and Gatsibo Districts were unlawful for the same reason; damages for lost profits were denied due to lack of proof, but restitution of costs and partial damages for unlawful contract termination were awarded.
Source excerpt
The High Court partially allowed an appeal over a house sale dispute, upheld rescission of the contract, ordered transfer to the buyers, and revised the refund amount.
The Court of Appeal held that Akarere ka Nyabihu’s second appeal was inadmissible because the lower courts rejected it on the same essential grounds.
The Court of Appeal held the second appeal inadmissible: the litigated subject matter value did not establish jurisdiction, and the applicants lost below on the same grounds.
The Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction over MAXWELL Ltd’s appeal, holding that the dispute value was not the basis for review and the appellants had lost below on the same grounds.
Supreme Court partly granted review for injustice, excluding new claims outside the original dispute and confirming interest accrues subject to the in duplum rule.
Explore more
