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 Supreme Court upheld a life sentence for murder, holding that the accused’s lack of remorse, the gravity of the offence, and domestic violence barred sentence reduction.
The Supreme Court rejected a criminal appeal, holding that self-defence was not proved and that no further sentence reduction was warranted.
The Supreme Court upheld Ndagijimana’s conviction for child defilement, relying on his pre-trial admissions and corroborating evidence, but reduced the sentence to 20 years.
The court found that Mbarushimana's actions—breaking into the victims' home at midnight armed with a hoe, striking them indiscriminately, and causing permanent disability—demonstrated intent to kill. The cruelty of the offence and lack of remorse justified denial of penalty reduction. The High Court's conviction and sentence were upheld.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld findings of attempted armed robbery, reduced sentences under the newer penal code, and ordered the respondents’ immediate release.
The Supreme Court upheld convictions for complicity in murder, holding that a retracted confession may still be assessed for sincerity and that cruelty barred penalty reduction.
The Supreme Court upheld Niyonsaba Boniface’s life sentence for murder, finding his late guilty plea insincere and the killing exceptionally cruel.
The Supreme Court of Rwanda acquitted Bigoboka Amosi and Amouri Assoumani for lack of proof, but rejected Nizigiyimana Djumatatu’s request for further sentence reduction.
The Court found Munyankumburwa intentionally killed the victim by disobeying his superior's order and firing three bullets, constituting homicide under article 311 of Decree Law nº 21/1977. The penalty was already reduced by the High Court due to mitigating circumstances. Burera District is civilly liable for damages as the act was committed during Munyankumburwa's duties, despite being outside the district's territorial jurisdiction and with a gun not belonging to him. The cross appeal for counsel fees was granted as necessary and reasonable.
Source excerpt
Munyankumburwa's act constituted intentional homicide as he loaded and fired the gun despite explicit orders not to shoot, evidencing intent. The penalty was already reduced due to his guilty plea and first offender status. Burera District is vicariously liable for damages as Munyankumburwa committed the offence while performing his duties, even if executed improperly, and the act was sufficiently connected to his employment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
