Rwanda Case Law

RLR V. 2- 2025

Court

Supreme Court

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution, as it lawfully confers jurisdiction on the court where contempt occurs and does not violate the right to appear before a competent court or the principle against self-judging. However, paragraph two of Article 81, which allows immediate punishment for contempt of court without informing the accused of the charges or allowing defence and legal representation, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court ordered that Article 81 be supplemented to require that the accused be informed o…

Source excerpt

• Due process of law
• Contempt of court
• Presumption of innocence
• Right to appeal
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings

Read case analysis

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

Article 81, paragraph 2, of Law No 22/2018 is unconstitutional as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the charges, to defend themselves, and to be represented by counsel, contrary to Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. The absence of a hearing before summary punishment for contempt in court violates fair trial guarantees. However, paragraph 1 of Article 81 does not contravene the Constitution regarding the allocation of jurisdiction or the right to appeal, as statutory law permits the court where contempt occurs to try the offence, and the limitation on appeal from the Supreme…

Source excerpt

• Fair trial rights
• Contempt of court
• Judicial independence
• Right to legal representation
• Right to be informed of charges
• Right to appeal

Read case analysis

Re MIRONKO

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC00005/2023/SC

Article 81, paragraph one, of Law no 22/2018 is not inconsistent with the Constitution regarding jurisdiction, right to appear before a competent court, right to appeal, public hearings, or prohibition of self-judging. However, Article 81, paragraph two, is inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution as it denies the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge, the right to defence, and the right to legal representation. The unconstitutional portion is declared without effect and replaced with a procedure ensuring these rights.

Source excerpt

• Due process
• Contempt of court
• Right to fair trial
• Judicial independence
• Public hearings
• Right to legal representation

Read case analysis

RLR V. 4 - 2021

Court

Supreme Court

The Court held that the limitation of second appeals for those who lost for the same reasons in lower courts does not violate due process, as the right to a first appeal is preserved and extraordinary remedies exist. However, barring second appeals for those who pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unequal treatment and violates the principle of equality before the law. Thus, the relevant parts of article 52(3) and article 46(2) of Law n°30/2018 are unconstitutional as they relate to the inadmissibility of second appeals for parties who pleaded gui…

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Second appeal
• Due process
• Equality before the law

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

The Supreme Court held that while the right to a first appeal is fundamental and cannot be unduly restricted, the legislature may impose reasonable limitations on second appeals for legitimate purposes. However, denying second appeals solely on the basis that the appellant pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unjustified discrimination and violates the principle of equality before the law under Article 15 of the Constitution. The relevant parts of Articles 46(2) and 52(3) of Law No. 30/2018 are therefore unconstitutional to the extent that they den…

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Equality before the law
• Judicial powers
• Limitations on appeals
• Fair trial

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

The Court held that barring a second appeal solely because the appellant lost for the same reasons in previous courts does not violate due process, as the right to a first appeal is guaranteed and further limitations are legitimate. However, barring a second appeal for those who pleaded guilty, while allowing it for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unequal treatment and violates the principle of equality before the law and due process. Thus, the relevant parts of paragraph 2 of article 46 and paragraph 3 of article 52 of Law no 30/2018 are unconstitutional to the extent they bar a se…

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Due process
• Equality before the law
• Second appeal
• Criminal justice

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

The court held that limiting second appeals for those who lost on the same grounds in lower courts does not violate the right to a fair trial, as the right to a first appeal is fundamental and sufficient, and extraordinary remedies remain available. However, denying second appeals solely to those who pleaded guilty, while allowing them for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unjustified discrimination and violates the principle of equality before the law.

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Equality before the law
• Judicial powers
• Limitations on appeals

Read case analysis

Re ASIIMWE

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RS/INCONST/SPEC 00004/2020/SC

The Court held that while the right to a first appeal is inalienable, the law may legitimately limit the right to a second appeal for those who lost for the same reasons in previous courts. However, barring a second appeal solely because the appellant pleaded guilty, while allowing it for those who pleaded not guilty, constitutes unequal treatment and is inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law under Article 15 of the Constitution. Therefore, the relevant parts of paragraph 2 of Article 46 and paragraph 3 of Article 52 of Law n°30/2018 are unconstitutional to the extent that…

Source excerpt

• Right to appeal
• Due process
• Equality before the law
• Jurisdiction of courts

Read case analysis

NSHIMIYIMANA ET.AL v. KOMISIYO Y’IGIHUGU YO KURWANYA SIDA (C.N.L.S)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

RADA 0029/12/CS

The Supreme Court held that the appellants’ contracts were lawfully terminated by force majeure, rejecting salary claims for the remaining term and unfair dismissal damages.

• Employment contract termination
• Force majeure
• Damages for unfair dismissal
• Restitution of motivation fees
• Right to appeal
• Court fees

Read case analysis

SOCOGEDI SA v. BRALIRWA

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

R.COM.A 0156/11/CS

The Supreme Court held that SOCOGEDI and BRALIRWA’s commercial partnership continued after the written contract expired, but BRALIRWA was not liable for damages.

• Commercial partnership agreements
• Termination of contract
• Damages
• Proof of commercial contracts
• Right to appeal
• Commercial-contracts

Read case analysis