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
There is no contradiction between the judgments because the parties and subject matter are not identical, and the judgments can be executed concurrently. The applicants' claim lacks merit, and they are liable for costs to the respondents for unnecessary litigation.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that two final judgments over the same property were contradictory, set both aside, and ordered restitution of the purchase prices paid.
The Supreme Court dismissed Mpongempite Emmanuel’s claim that two final Gacaca judgments from Nyabitare conflicted, finding only one final judgment for that date.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda held that a claim filed against deceased respondents is inadmissible and cannot be examined on the merits.
The Supreme Court held there was no contradiction between a 2009 Abunzi decision and a 2013 Gasabo Intermediate Court judgment, and dismissed Muberandinda’s claim.
The Supreme Court found contradictory final judgments over matrimonial property and set aside later decisions concerning the disputed assets.
The Court of Appeal established binding principles on criminal responsibility and mental illness, the definition of contradictory judgments, the limits of procedural error as grounds for second appeal, the requirements for recusal, evidentiary standards for property division among unmarried cohabitants, the scope of mitigating circumstances in sentencing, the validity of confessions, the appellate court's power to reduce sentences, the corroboration requirement for child testimony, and the rule that doubt must benefit the accused.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal digest of April 2023 precedents on criminal responsibility, contradictory judgments, recusal, sentencing mitigation, corroboration, cohabitation property division, and labour redundancy.
The Court of Appeal held that foreign-litigant security is a procedural issue, not a basis for dismissal, but dismissed the contradictory-judgments claim as inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal held that Gahizi Francis lacked a personal, direct and current interest to seek resolution of contradictory judgments about a debt to DREDECO Ltd.
Explore more
