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 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
Nyirasafari Gaudentia failed to provide a legally valid marriage certificate or a valid substitute judgment as required by law to establish standing to claim succession property. The documents she relied on (attestations, letters, ID, and a substitute judgment) did not meet the legal requirements, as the substitute judgment had been annulled and other documents were not legally sufficient. Therefore, she lacked standing, and her claims could not be entertained.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that an employee need not first submit a labour dispute to employee representatives whose mandate had expired without replacement.
The High Court upheld dismissal of Ndizeye Martin Patrick’s urgent application, holding that the dispute lacked the urgency required for summary relief.
The Court of Appeal held that the lawyer-fee dispute had to pass through the Bar mediation process, the contract bound the companies, and only 8,000 USD was owed.
The court held that the registrar's acceptance of the revival application did not bar the court from examining the merits. The appellants failed to provide credible, documented, exceptional reasons for their absence at the hearing. Their explanations were unsupported by evidence and contradicted by their conduct. Consequently, the application to revive the appeal was dismissed, and the urgent application to stay execution was inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that Rwanda Revenue Authority met the 60-day deadline because the response was delivered to the post office within time, not when received by the taxpayer.
SINFOTEC Sarl failed to prove force majeure for the 12-day delay; thus, OCIR-THE was entitled to deduct penalties for that period. However, OCIR-THE was not entitled to set-off amounts owed by a different company (E.I.S.) against SINFOTEC Sarl. SINFOTEC Sarl is entitled to damages for late payment on the wrongfully withheld amount, calculated at 0.1% per day for 1,753 days, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. Claims for additional damages based on tort or for bank charges were rejected as not contractually or legally justified.
Source excerpt
Explore more
