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 Court of Appeal dismissed an urgent application to halt activities on disputed land, holding that the applicant failed to prove CRBC was responsible for the alleged harm.
The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction over the urgent application, but dismissed it as inadmissible because the issue had already been finally decided.
The Court of Appeal held that Mazimpaka Christian, as respondent who did not initiate the substantive suit, lacked standing to file an urgent application before the High Court. The High Court erred in entertaining and granting such application. Accordingly, the High Court's decision was set aside as a nullity.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to demonstrate any real urgency or irreparable harm that would result from execution of the judgment before the review application was determined. His concerns about undervaluation and inability to recover property are speculative and do not meet the legal threshold for urgent relief. The High Commercial Court did not err in dismissing the urgent application. The bailiff, having been unnecessarily joined, is entitled to partial costs and advocate's fees.
Source excerpt
The urgent application by Life Goal Company Ltd was inadmissible because it was not the party who initiated the main suit in the High Commercial Court. Only the party who filed the main suit has standing to bring an urgent application. Consequently, the High Commercial Court's decision was set aside, and Life Goal Company Ltd was ordered to pay costs and attorney fees to Niyonsaba Edouard.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal, letting construction continue but keeping the disputed land from being transferred pending the main case.
The reasons advanced by Izere Pio for staying execution were insufficient, as there was no evidence of imminent risk that the land would be irretrievably lost if he succeeded in the main claim. The mere pendency of an opposition does not justify a stay of execution. The claim for damages by Mukantagara Bonifride was also unsupported as neither he nor his counsel appeared to substantiate the claim.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that an urgent application for provisional seizure was inadmissible because the requested relief did not relate to the main case. A damages counterclaim was also rejected.
Explore more
