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
Urukiko rw’Ubujurire rwemeje ko nta buregeke bw’imanza buriho, rushimangira ko ubujurire bwa kabiri butari mu bubasha bwarwo kuko nta gihano cyari cyagenwe.
The Court of Appeal held that Kayirangwa Immaculée’s second appeal was inadmissible because she had lost in both lower courts on the same grounds.
The Court found that both lower courts dismissed applicant's claims on the same substantive ground—failure to prove origin of the disputed land—making the second appeal inadmissible under Article 52(3) Law No 30/2018. Differences in evidence or statutes cited do not alter the sameness of the grounds.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the Prosecution and FX Tugirane Ubumwe Mining Co Ltd failed to show reliance on a non-existent law, so their second appeal was inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over the second appeal because the amount awarded below was 40,400,000 Frw, below the 75,000,000 Frw threshold.
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
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
The Supreme Court found that the MoU of 30/09/2010 was submitted after the close of hearings and relied upon in the High Commercial Court's judgment without giving the opposing party an opportunity to contest it, thus violating the contradictory principle and conferring jurisdiction for a second appeal under Article 28 of Organic Law no03/2012.
Source excerpt
Explore more
