Rwanda Case Law

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

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.

Source excerpt

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

Read case analysis

Re INGABIRE UMUHOZA (FOND)

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.

Source excerpt

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

Read case analysis

NSHIMYEYO v. COPEDU PLC N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RCOMAA 00030/2025/CA

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over a second appeal because the applicant had 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

Read case analysis

UBURIYEMUYE v. HOME BASKET SACCO KIMIRONKO

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.

Source excerpt

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

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

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…

Source excerpt

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

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

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.

Source excerpt

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

Read case analysis