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
Article 41 of Law n° 30/2018 does not contradict article 15 of the Constitution because it does not discriminate between litigants within the same category. Differentiation between categories of accused persons, based on their roles and the courts of first instance, is justified by legitimate purposes and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.
Source excerpt
Article 161, paragraph 4 of Law n0 22/2018 does not contradict articles 15, 29(1)(c), or 34 of the Constitution, as the distinction between courts is based on legitimate jurisdictional grounds and the principle that judicial proceedings must have an end. The provision does not deprive aggrieved parties of remedies, nor does it violate equality, due process, or property rights.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal by SHALOM METAL SUPPLY LTD, holding it had no jurisdiction because the alleged conciliation defect did not prove lack of jurisdiction.
By choosing to litigate in court and not raising the arbitration clause as a jurisdictional objection, both parties tacitly amended their contract and waived the right to arbitration. Therefore, the lower courts had jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal.
Source excerpt
Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it lawfully confers jurisdiction on the court where contempt occurs and does not violate the right to appear before a competent court or the principle against self-judging. However, paragraph two of Article 81, which allows immediate punishment for contempt of court without informing the accused of the charges or allowing defence and legal representation, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court ordered that Article 81 be supplemented to require that the accused be informed o…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a challenge to an auction must be filed as an urgent claim in the court where the auction occurred, and upheld the land registration order.
The court held that Mukanyonga Félicité did not prove she was the sole heir of her late mother and therefore lacked standing and legal capacity to sue for the estate in her own name. Consequently, the lower courts erred in accepting her claim. All related judgments were set aside, and the matter reverted to its prior status.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that an appeal from a High Commercial Court decision on annulment of an arbitral award is not admissible and dismissed GUARDSMARK Ltd’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal held that Mbarushimana’s second appeal was inadmissible because he had lost on the same grounds in the lower courts.
The Court of Appeal held that alleged procedural errors did not amount to lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the second appeal as inadmissible.
Explore more
