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 Court of Appeal held that the evidence relied on to reopen the case was not new and dismissed Habumugisha Hamzaâs application for review.
The Court of Appeal held that Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd had not shown the documents were new evidence, so its review application was inadmissible.
The alleged sentencing disparity is not a new fact as defined by Article 197 of Law NÂș 027/2019. It does not constitute conclusive new evidence that was unavailable during the original proceedings and cannot serve as a ground for review. The application does not meet the legal requirements for admission.
Source excerpt
The High Court rejected Kwihangana Eudiâs application to review an earlier judgment, holding that the SAIC Ltd report was not new evidence under the law.
The Supreme Court dismissed Mpawenimana Fulgenceâs review application, finding the 03/06/2020 letter was not new or decisive evidence and left the prior judgment unchanged.
The investigation report relied upon by SGF was produced after the original judgment and thus does not qualify as new evidence under the law. Furthermore, its contents do not introduce any decisive new facts that would have changed the outcome of the original case. Therefore, the application for review is inadmissible. The applicants are entitled to a reasonable award of legal fees and litigation costs, but not in the amounts claimed.
Source excerpt
The High Court set aside an earlier Ngoma judgment for injustice after finding the court ignored Rwanda Forensic Laboratory evidence proving the contract signature was not genuine.
SANLAM's application for review was filed 45 working days after the judgment delivery date, exceeding the statutory 30-day limit, as all parties were present and notified of the delivery date. Therefore, the application was inadmissible for failure to comply with procedural time limits.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court dismissed BPR Atlas Maraâs review application, holding that its second appeal was inadmissible because it had lost for the same reasons below.
Explore more
