Rwanda Case Law

MUA INSURANCE RWANDA Ltd v SANLAM AG. Plc

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00001/2024/SC

SANLAM AG Plc did not provide conclusive evidence that the fire was caused by EUCL Ltd's conduct. The technical and factual record did not establish, without doubt, that EUCL Ltd's wiring was the source of the fire. Therefore, MUA Insurance Rwanda Ltd, as EUCL Ltd's insurer, is not liable for the sums previously awarded. Restitution of amounts paid is ordered.

Source excerpt

• Burden of proof
• Insurance liability
• Fire damage
• Subrogation
• Review for injustice

Read case analysis

SANLAM ASSURANCE GÉNÉRALES Plc v IMPANOYIMANA N’ABANDI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00022/2022/SC

The Supreme Court dismissed SANLAM’s review application, holding it could not raise a salary issue for the first time at the review stage on grounds of injustice.

• Review on grounds of injustice
• Compensation for road accident
• Insurance liability
• Admissibility of new issues on review
• Review-on-grounds-of-injustice
• New-issues-on-review

Read case analysis

MUKASHEFU NA BAGENZI BE v SANLAM AG Plc

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00038/2022/CA

Court of Appeal (Rwanda) partially granted a retrial on injustice grounds, holding there was no conclusive proof the deceased was a professional motari, but recalculating economic damages.

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Damages calculation
• Burden of proof
• Evidence law
• Wrongful death
• Insurance liability

Read case analysis

AKIMANIZANYE N’ABANDI v NICE EGGS COMPANY Ltd N’UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00013/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal held that only the widow and children could pursue review for injustice, and it quantified workplace accident damages using general principles.

• Workplace accident compensation
• Standing to sue
• Quantification of damages
• Procedural bars to review
• Insurance liability
• Workplace-accident-compensation

Read case analysis

AKIMANIZANYE N'ABANDI vs. NICE EGGS COMPANY Ltd N'UNDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RSOC 00013/2022/CA

Only the widow and four children of the deceased have standing to claim compensation; compensation is calculated by judicial discretion using minimum wage and years to retirement, with the employer liable for the total and the insurer liable only up to the contractually agreed amount.

Source excerpt

• Workplace accident compensation
• Standing in civil claims
• Insurance liability
• Reopening judgments for injustice

Read case analysis

SANLAM v BIZIMANA N’UNDI

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA 00099/2022/HC/KIG

The High Court partly allowed SANLAM’s appeal, setting aside awards for loss of employment, disfigurement, and temporary disability for lack of proof.

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Damages for loss of employment
• Burden of proof
• Insurance liability
• Personal injury damages
• Motor-vehicle-accident-compensation

Read case analysis

Mulindahabi v Sanlam

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00004/2023/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Mulindahabi’s crash was an ordinary road accident, not a work accident, and reinstated the intermediate court’s compensation award.

• Motor vehicle accident
• Workplace accident distinction
• Compensation for personal injury
• Insurance liability
• Appeal on grounds of injustice
• Motor-vehicle-accident

Read case analysis

NYIRAGATO NABANDI v SONARWA

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA 00052/2022/HC/KIG

SONARWA is liable to pay compensation to the applicants because the insurance contract expressly provides for apportionment of compensation when the number of passengers exceeds the insured limit. The contract terms override the general principle of non-liability for breach, and the formula for apportionment must be applied. Only dependents who prove dependency are entitled to economic damages, and other damages are calculated per statutory and contractual provisions.

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Insurance liability
• Damages for wrongful death
• Apportionment of liability
• Procedural joinder

Read case analysis

MUSHIMIYIMANA v BRITAM

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA 00039/2022/HC/KIG

The insurer is not liable for compensation to persons injured while being carried in a vehicle in violation of the insurance contract and the law, where the breach (overloading) was intentional and known to the insured or their agent. The insurance policy covered only three passengers and third parties, not the 78 persons unlawfully carried. The appeal has no merit, and the lower court's decision stands.

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle accident
• Insurance liability
• Third party insurance
• Breach of insurance contract
• Tort liability

Read case analysis

RADIANT INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v TURAYISENGA

Court

High Court

Case number

RCA00088/2022/HC/RWG

The court held that the police accident report was sufficient to establish liability for the accident and that waiting for the outcome of the criminal case was unnecessary. However, damages for medical expenses and travel must be supported by evidence; in the absence of such evidence, the court reduced these awards to amounts determined at its discretion. The court found no double compensation for pain and suffering, distinguishing between different heads of damages.

Source excerpt

• Motor vehicle accident compensation
• Personal injury damages
• Insurance liability
• Assessment of damages

Read case analysis