Rwanda Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Rwanda Case Law

Judicial powers

  • 27 Mar 2026

    Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

    Citation
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

    Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate persons mentioned during trial does not amount to treating them as accused, nor does it infringe on prosecutorial independence or the separation of powers. The prosecution retains discretion on whether to prosecute after investigation. The provision ensures judicial oversight and the pursuit of justice without undermining constitutional guarantees.

    • Separation of powers
    • Presumption of innocence
    • Judicial powers
    • Prosecutorial independence
    • Criminal investigation
    • Constitutional review

  • 27 Mar 2026

    Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

    Citation
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/SPEC00001/2025/SC

    Article 106 of Law No 27/2019, as amended, does not violate the Constitution. The court's power to order the prosecution to investigate individuals mentioned during trial does not amount to judicial encroachment on prosecutorial functions or breach the presumption of innocence. The judiciary does not conduct investigations or dictate prosecutorial outcomes, but acts within its constitutional mandate to ensure justice and complementarity among state organs. The provision is consistent with the separation of powers, prosecutorial independence, and the right to a fair trial.

    • Separation of powers
    • Presumption of innocence
    • Judicial powers
    • Prosecutorial independence
    • Criminal investigations

  • 29 May 2025

    NSHIMYEYO v. COPEDU PLC N’ABANDI

    Citation
    RCOMAA 00030/2025/CA
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    RCOMAA 00030/2025/CA

    Second appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after the Court of Appeal found the applicant lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.

    • Judicial powers
    • Appeal jurisdiction
    • Auction of immovable property
    • Notification requirements
    • Legal capacity
    • Compensation for legal costs

  • 8 Oct 2021

    UBURIYEMUYE v. HOME BASKET SACCO KIMIRONKO

    Citation
    RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2020/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INJUST/RCOM 00006/2020/SC

    The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal exceeded its mandate by ruling on the merits of the case without hearing arguments beyond the preliminary objections, violating Article 11 of Law No. 22/2018. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside, and the case is remitted for substantive hearing on the applicant's grounds of appeal.

    • Review of judgments
    • Loan agreements
    • Judicial powers
    • Execution of judgments
    • Auction procedures

  • 26 Mar 2021

    Re ASIIMWE

    Citation
    RLR V.4-2021
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

    The Supreme Court held that while the right to a first appeal is fundamental and cannot be unduly restricted, the legislature may impose reasonable limitations on second appeals for legitimate purposes. However, denying second appeals solely on the basis that the appellant pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unjustified discrimination and violates the principle of equality before the law under Article 15 of the Constitution. The relevant parts of Articles 46(2) and 52(3) of Law No. 30/2018 are therefore unconstitutional to the extent that they den…

    • Right to appeal
    • Equality before the law
    • Judicial powers
    • Limitations on appeals
    • Fair trial

  • 26 Mar 2021

    Re ASIIMWE

    Citation
    RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC
    Court
    Supreme Court
    Case number
    RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

    The court held that limiting second appeals for those who lost on the same grounds in lower courts does not violate the right to a fair trial, as the right to a first appeal is fundamental and sufficient, and extraordinary remedies remain available. However, denying second appeals solely to those who pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unjustified discrimination and violates the principle of equality before the law.

    • Right to appeal
    • Equality before the law
    • Judicial powers
    • Limitations on appeals