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 held that the testimony of Mukamukama BĂ©atrice does not constitute new evidence within the meaning of Article 197, as the issue of Maman Queen was already raised and litigated in previous proceedings, and the testimony lacks the decisive character required to overturn the prior judgment. Therefore, the application for review is inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The applicant's alleged new evidence (trial transcript) is not new, as he was present and signed it at trial. The grounds do not meet the statutory requirements for review. The application is inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The application for revision is inadmissible because the cited precedent on sentence reduction is not new evidence as defined by law; it does not relate to facts of the crime or establish innocence, but is a legal argument that should have been raised on appeal. The requirements of Article 197(5) are not met.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that a review on new evidence must be filed before the court that last decided the merits. Mukeshimana’s application was inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal held that the review application was filed out of time because the alleged new evidence was already available earlier and was not shown to be inaccessible.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal review application, holding that a later paternity judgment was not new evidence capable of overturning a defilement conviction.
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence relied on to reopen the case was not new and dismissed Habumugisha Hamza’s application for review.
The application for review is inadmissible because the judgment sought to be reviewed (RPAA 00110/2018/CA) was not decided on the merits by the Court of Appeal, but dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; only the High Court judgment (RPA 00519/2017/HC/NYZ) was decided on the merits and could be subject to review.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that evidence already debated in earlier proceedings is not new evidence, and dismissed Twahirwa Aimable’s review application as inadmissible.
The High Court dismissed Hakizimana John’s application to revise his criminal conviction, holding that the FECOMIRWA audit report was not new decisive evidence.
Explore more
