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 Béatrice 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 Court of Appeal dismissed SANLAM ALLIANZ GI Plc’s appeal, holding that its third-party opposition was filed out of time and could not be admitted.
The Court of Appeal held that Thomas Et Piron Grands Lacs Ltd had already lost on the same grounds in the lower courts, so its second appeal was inadmissible.
The appeal was dismissed because Abunzubumwe Ltd filed its claim after the statutory limitation period, which is calculated from the date of the first administrative complaint. Subsequent complaints do not reset the limitation period. The High Court correctly rejected the claim as time-barred.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Trust For Sustainable Group Ltd’s second appeal was not admissible because it lost below on the same grounds and the damages awarded were below the statutory threshold.
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear a second appeal in commercial matters where the total damages awarded in the lower courts do not reach 75,000,000 Frw, regardless of the original value of the property in dispute, and the appeal is therefore inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same essential ground.
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the appellants had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The appeal was not validly filed because the grounds for appeal were submitted after the statutory one-month deadline. The appellant failed to provide evidence of IECMS system failure to justify the delay. Procedural deadlines are mandatory and their violation is a jurisdictional bar to hearing the appeal.
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal digest of precedents on criminal proof, sentencing, appeal deadlines, inheritance, and civil-commercial procedure.
Explore more
