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 a co-owner’s sale binds only that seller’s share. Ntakirutinka could reclaim her share, and Kabera kept the rest with compensation ordered.
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.
Heirs of Icyimpaye Marie Rose and Twagirayezu Aloys are entitled to recover co-owned property sold without their consent. It is not necessary for them to request cancellation of the sale contract to which they were not parties. The sale is valid only for Twagirayezu Albert's share (1/5); the remaining 4/5 must revert to the other heirs. Umumaranyota Agnès, as buyer in good faith, must be compensated for the actual value of the deprived property. Damages and procedural fees are awarded to both parties as justified.
Source excerpt
Applicants are entitled to reclaim their share of jointly owned property sold without consent; sale contract remains valid only for seller's share. Respondent must compensate buyer for value of evicted share. Ownership documents alone are insufficient without proof of acquisition. Legal fees and damages awarded proportionally.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that the land dispute belonged in the Primary Court, so Mukamana’s appeal was not admitted and the Intermediate Court decision stood.
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 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 Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to hear a commercial appeal after finding the mortgaged property’s value in the record exceeded the statutory threshold.
Explore more
