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 Muganda had no shareholder rights in later clinics and must return money paid under the reversed judgment.
The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was partly successful only on interest. It upheld liability to refund USD 80,000, plus damages and costs.
The Court of Appeal held that grounds of appeal filed by Nzizera on 06/10/2022 and 07/10/2022 were timely as they were submitted within one month after the judgment copy was uploaded to IECMS. The High Court erred in holding Nzizera's claim inadmissible on the basis of res judicata, as previous judgments did not resolve the substantive issues raised. However, Nzizera failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his substantive claims regarding misappropriation of company funds, and the request for an audit was properly denied as it was not raised at first instance. No party was awarded co…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court found a 1997 extraordinary shareholders’ meeting invalid, awarded the claimants share value, unpaid dividends, interest, and legal costs, and granted review for injustice.
The Supreme Court held that the disputed immovable property remained registered to SOPROCOGI Ltd, so Byuma Jean Claude’s review request failed.
After repayment of the debt, Fundira Léon was entitled to the return of his 50% shares in PHARMAVIE Ltd. The subsequent transfer of all shares to VINE PHARMACY Ltd by Mutabaruka Cécile was invalid as it occurred after the order for rehearing. However, as the shares had already been transferred to a third party, Fundira Léon is entitled to the monetary value of his shares as assessed by experts, plus interest for delay, but not to dividends, as there was no evidence of distributed profits.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that PASSAG COMPANY Ltd lacked standing to sue over funds belonging to ECOMIL-PASSAG Ltd because it had not obtained court authorization.
Registration in the company’s share register, not full payment for shares, determines shareholder status. There is no legal basis for a shareholder to unilaterally expel another shareholder; such action must follow procedures set by law or company articles. Kakoza’s expulsion of Nyagatare was unlawful, and Nyagatare retains his shareholder rights.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that shareholder status depends on registration in the share register, not full payment of shares, and that one shareholder could not dismiss another.
The Supreme Court held that a company summoned only to give information is not treated as a party, so a shareholder was not barred from intervening.
Explore more
