Rwanda Case Law

CIMERWA LTD v KIGALI CERAMICA FURNITURE LTD ET.AL

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00001/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that the mere issuance of cheques by KCF Ltd did not constitute valid payment as the cheques were not backed by sufficient funds from issuance to expiration. The underlying debt remained enforceable, and KCF Ltd was obligated to pay the outstanding amount. Interest was awarded at the average lending rate published by the National Bank of Rwanda. The Court found no grounds to pierce the corporate veil and hold Karangwa Raymond personally liable. KCF Ltd was ordered to reimburse CIMERWA Ltd for the previously paid 11,650,000 Frw and to pay legal costs.

Source excerpt

• Negotiable instruments
• Breach of contract
• Cheque payment
• Interest calculation
• Corporate veil
• Unlawful enrichment

Read case analysis

BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA ATLAS MARA PLC V. NKUSI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 0000/2020/ SC

The Supreme Court held that BPR Atlas Mara’s review application lacked merit, confirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling, and awarded Nkusi Evariste fees.

• Review of judgments
• Admissibility of appeals
• Negotiable instruments
• Damages
• Party intervention
• Review-of-judgment

Read case analysis

BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA ATLAS MARA PLC V. NKUSI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 0000/2020/ SC

The Supreme Court rejected BPR Atlas Mara Plc’s review application, upheld the Court of Appeal judgment, and awarded Nkusi Evariste 800,000 Frw in fees.

• Review of judgments
• Inadmissibility of appeals
• Intervention of third parties
• Negotiable instruments
• Damages
• Procedural fees

Read case analysis

BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA ATLAS MARA PLC V. NKUSI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 0000/2020/ SC

The Supreme Court dismissed BPR Atlas Mara’s review application, holding that its second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost for the same reasons below.

• Review of judgment
• Inadmissibility of appeal
• Intervention of third parties
• Damages
• Negotiable instruments
• Review-of-judgment

Read case analysis

STEDCON RWANDA v. ACCESS BANK

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0002/12/CS

The Supreme Court held that since the cheque was signed by authorized persons and STEDCON RWANDA Ltd did not prove fraud, duress, or lack of authority, ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd was not at fault in paying the cheque. The bank was not notified that one signatory lacked authority, and the internal policy did not override the mandate without proper notification. The appeal lacked merit.

Source excerpt

• Negotiable instruments
• Cheque payment
• Bank liability
• Fraud prevention

Read case analysis

STEDCON RWANDA v. ACCESS BANK

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0002/12/CS

The Supreme Court held that since the cheque was signed by the authorized signatories as per the account mandate, and STEDCON RWANDA Ltd did not deny the cheque or allege fraud, ACCESS BANK RWANDA Ltd was not at fault for paying the cheque without additional confirmation from one director. The bank's compliance with the signatures on file satisfied its legal obligations, and internal policy could not be unilaterally modified by one signatory without the other's agreement.

Source excerpt

• Negotiable instruments
• Cheque payment
• Bank liability
• Contractual obligations

Read case analysis

32STEDCON RWANDA v. ACCESS BANK

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

2014SC

The Supreme Court held that since the cheque was signed by all authorized signatories and there was no evidence of fraud, coercion, or abuse, the bank was not at fault for paying it without additional confirmation. Unilateral instructions by one signatory could not bind the bank where another signatory was also authorized. The applicant’s appeal lacked merit, and the respondent was entitled to damages and legal fees as previously awarded.

Source excerpt

• Negotiable instruments
• Bank liability
• Cheque payment
• Damages
• Contractual instructions

Read case analysis

STEDCON RWANDA v. ACCESS BANK

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

2014SC

The Supreme Court held that ACCESS BANK did not breach any duty by paying the cheque, as it was signed by lawful signatories with equal rights on the account, and there was no evidence of fraud, bad faith, duress, or breach of trust. The contractual policy requiring confirmation could not override the equal rights of signatories unless both agreed. STEDCON's claim was baseless, and damages and fees were awarded to ACCESS BANK.

Source excerpt

• Negotiable instruments
• Cheque payment
• Banking obligations
• Damages
• Contractual interpretation

Read case analysis

ECOBANK v. INDIA NOVEMBER

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RCOMA 0005/10/CS

The Supreme Court held ECOBANK liable to refund stolen travellers’ cheques because INDIA NOVEMBER made timely opposition and ECOBANK failed to prove transfer to the issuer.

• Negotiable instruments
• Travellers' cheques
• Bank liability
• Moratory damages
• Travellers-cheques
• Bank-liability

Read case analysis