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 found Mount Meru liable in part for unlawful dismissal and occupational-accident related losses after failing to register the worker with social security.
Compensation for the fatal accident is governed by the workmen compensation insurance agreement between CRBC Ltd and SANLAM AG Plc, not by the compulsory motor vehicle insurance or tort liability. The applicants already received the due compensation under this scheme, and are not entitled to further compensation or damages.
Source excerpt
BRALIRWA Plc, as the complainant, did not make the decision to detain Nsengumuremyi John; that decision was made by investigative and prosecutorial authorities in the exercise of their statutory powers. There is no evidence that BRALIRWA Plc acted maliciously or outside its legal rights in reporting the suspected crime. Therefore, BRALIRWA Plc cannot be held liable for damages arising from the detention of Nsengumuremyi John.
Source excerpt
The accident suffered by Habakubaho was not a road accident but resulted from a mechanical defect of the vehicle’s door during unloading, not related to his employment duties. The insurer (Sanlam) is not liable as the risk was not covered under the insurance contract. The employer (Bralirwa) is not liable as the accident was not an occupational hazard. Sorwatraco Ltd, as owner of the defective vehicle, is liable for damages under ordinary civil law for failing to maintain the vehicle in a safe condition.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed Bikorimana’s appeal, holding that he failed to prove RDB was liable for damage caused by an employee acting within employment duties.
The Court of Appeal upheld a murder conviction, finding no lawful self-defence. It also held the State was not jointly liable for damages.
ESETRA Ltd is liable for the death of Habimana Viateur because the accident occurred in its mine, which it operated and controlled, and the company failed to rebut evidence that the accident resulted from its failure to observe safety standards. Liability attaches regardless of direct employment status or explicit admission, based on the principle that a person is responsible for harm caused by things under their care. The trial court's award of damages to the mother and siblings is upheld, with a minor adjustment to the amount for legal costs on appeal.
Source excerpt
Where an employee suffers a workplace accident and the insurance payout is insufficient to cover the actual damages, the employer is liable to pay the difference, and compensation is to be determined based on evidence and the court's discretion, not by formulas applicable to road accidents.
Source excerpt
Where insurance indemnity is insufficient to compensate for workplace injury, the employer is liable for the difference based on evidence and judicial discretion, restoring the employee to the position they would have been in absent the injury.
Source excerpt
The High Court held GT Bank liable in tort for negligence by its employees and ordered damages after Bazambanza was wrongfully detained and later acquitted.
Explore more
