Rwanda Case Law

MUREMANYUNDO v NYIRIMIHIGO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00031/2024/SC

The Supreme Court held that both Law No. 22/99 (1999) and Organic Law No. 8/2005 (2005) applied. However, under Article 22 of Law No. 22/99, the right to challenge a sale of matrimonial property lapses after 5 years. Since Muremanyundo Jeanne filed her claim more than 14 years after the 2006 sale, her right to contest had expired, making the sale agreement irrevocable and valid.

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial property
• Land sale
• Limitation period
• Good faith purchaser
• Revision for injustice

Read case analysis

SONARWA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd v NDIZEYE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00018/2024/SC

The Supreme Court rejected SONARWA’s revision for injustice, holding it could not raise new claims absent from the earlier proceedings, and affirmed the damages award.

• Revision for injustice
• Motor vehicle insurance
• Cross-border accidents
• Damages calculation
• Revision-for-injustice
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

KABIRIGI v. UWERA N’ABANDI (ADD)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC00006/2024/CA

Court of Appeal held Kabirigi Gérard’s revision-for-injustice claim was admissible despite no second appeal, because a second appeal would have been inadmissible on the same grounds.

• Revision for injustice
• Admissibility of claims
• Appeal process
• Res judicata
• Land disputes
• Revision-for-injustice

Read case analysis

NYIRANSABIMANA v UWINEZA N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RSA/RS/REV/RC 00001/2024/CA

The Court of Appeal held that no appeal or tierce opposition lies against a judgment revised for injustice, and dismissed the appeal.

• Revision for injustice
• Tierce opposition
• Jurisdiction
• Distribution of property
• Child support
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

NSANZUBUHORO v. NYAMANSWA RUKUNDO

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00003/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Nsanzubuhoro Justin was the actual victim despite a name error, set aside prior costs, and awarded him damages and costs.

• Revision for injustice
• Compensation for criminal injury
• Misidentification of victim
• Procedural error
• Damages
• Revision-for-injustice

Read case analysis

UBUSHINJACYAHA vs UWIMANIHAYE

Court

High Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RP 00001/2022/HC/KIG

The High Court found injustice in revision proceedings because the civil claimant was not summoned, held the alleged new evidence was not new, and maintained the original judgment.

• Revision for injustice
• New evidence
• Right to be heard
• Compensation for legal representation
• Criminal-revision
• New-evidence

Read case analysis

UZAMUKUNDA N’UNDI v SAWASAWA N’ABANDI

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00036/2022/CA

The Court of Appeal held that Uzamukunda Jeanne proved lawful ownership of the disputed plot, while the respondents failed to show a valid transfer from her.

• Immovable property ownership
• Burden of proof
• Revision for injustice
• Compensation for damages
• Transfer of property
• Authentic acts

Read case analysis

IMIRONGO IREBANA N’IMIBURANISHIRIZE Y’IMANZA ZISABIRWA GUSUBIRISHWAMO KU MPAMVU ZA KARENGANE- URUKIKO RW'IKIRENGA

Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court precedents explain when a judgment may be revised for injustice, who may apply, what issues can be raised, and the procedural limits.

• Revision for injustice
• Finality of judgments
• Procedural bars
• Exceptional remedies
• Revision-for-injustice
• Final-judgments

Read case analysis

BANQUE POPULAIRE DU RWANDA ATLAS MARA Plc v NKUSI

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INJUST/RCOM 00005/2020/SC

The Supreme Court dismissed BPR Atlas Mara Plc’s revision for injustice, upheld the appellate judgment, and awarded costs and attorney fees to Nkusi Evariste.

• Cheque payment disputes
• Standing of parties
• Revision for injustice
• Costs and attorney fees
• Cheque-payment-disputes
• Revision-for-injustice

Read case analysis

KABERUKA v MUBERA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

RS/INJUST/RC 00009/2019/CA

The Court of Appeal held that appeal and revision for injustice cannot be pursued at the same time on the same judgment, and dismissed the revision as inadmissible.

• Revision for injustice
• Appeal procedure
• Admissibility of claims
• Costs and attorney fees
• Civil-procedure
• Appeal-procedure

Read case analysis