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 Supreme Court held that the petitioner had standing and upheld the challenged succession provisions as constitutional.
The impugned provisions do not violate the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, protection of the family, or the right to property. The distinctions made by the law are justified by the need to protect the surviving spouse, who has contributed to the acquisition of matrimonial property and assumes sole responsibility for the family after the spouse's death. Succession rights of other heirs arise only when succession opens, and the law provides mechanisms to protect their interests. There is no unconstitutional deprivation or discrimination.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions of Law Nº 27/2016 do not violate the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, protection of the family, or the right to property. The distinctions made in favor of the surviving spouse are justified by the need to protect the spouse who shared responsibility for acquiring matrimonial property and to prevent family disputes. The law does not deprive other heirs of their rights, as succession opens only upon the death or remarriage of the surviving spouse, at which point all heirs' rights are recognized. The right to property…
Source excerpt
The differentiation in favor of the surviving spouse is based on legitimate, reasonable grounds to protect the spouse from mistreatment and ensure household continuity; it does not amount to discrimination or violation of equality. The right to property under the Constitution protects only existing property, not future expectations. Succession rights for other heirs arise only when succession opens, i.e., when both spouses die or the surviving spouse remarries. The impugned articles are not inconsistent with the Constitution.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that paragraph 2 of article 39 of Law N° 59/2008 is not inconsistent with articles 15, 16, and 34 of the Constitution. The Court found that the rationale for property sharing among cohabiting partners is joint acquisition or ownership, and that Supreme Court precedents have already established that property acquired during cohabitation is to be shared upon separation, regardless of the reason. The absence of explicit statutory language does not deprive parties of constitutional rights, and lower courts are bound to follow Supreme Court precedents. The petition was dismi…
Source excerpt
Mukagatare Mariane was not legally married to Gashabure Michel and thus not entitled to inherit his property, but her cohabitation and contribution entitled her to compensation, which she had already received. The land registration certificate in her name is invalid as she failed to prove legitimate acquisition. The land belongs to Gashabure Michel's heirs, and Nicyabera Espérance is entitled to damages for being deprived of her rights.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court dismissed GLIHD’s constitutional petition, holding that Article 39(2) of Law No. 59/2008 does not conflict with the Constitution.
Article 16 and 17 of Law N° 75/2018 do not contravene articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution as the differentiation in tax rates is based on legitimate public policy objectives and does not amount to prohibited discrimination. Article 19 is inconsistent with article 15 of the Constitution because it imposes unequal tax treatment on similarly situated landowners based solely on the date of acquisition, lacking a legitimate ground. Article 20 does not contravene articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution as the additional tax on undeveloped land serves a legitimate public interest, with safeguards…
Source excerpt
Paragraph 2 of article 39 of Law N° 59/2008 does not infringe on the constitutional rights to equality, non-discrimination, or property, as the law is not intended to deprive property rights to cohabiting partners who separate for reasons other than marriage. Supreme Court precedents establish that property acquired jointly by cohabiting partners is to be shared upon separation, regardless of the reason, and the doctrine of precedent ensures lower courts must follow this principle.
Source excerpt
Explore more
