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 court held that although Tumukunde Rehema had a co-ownership interest in the property, she failed to challenge the sale within the five-year statutory period after learning of the transaction. As such, the sale to Vuguziga Hermenegilde became irrevocable by operation of law, and her claim for annulment and damages was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court found that the land in dispute was sold by the applicant's late husband in accordance with the law and custom prevailing at the time, with no credible evidence of unlawful dispossession or lack of spousal representation. The applicant failed to prove her claims, and the prior judgments awarding the land to the respondents and imposing costs and damages on the applicant remain valid.
Source excerpt
The Court found that the land was sold by the applicant's late husband in accordance with the law and custom prevailing at the time, that the applicant's lack of written consent did not invalidate the sale, that the respondents acquired the land in good faith, and that the applicant's claims were unfounded. The prior judgments were upheld, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs and attorney fees.
Source excerpt
The High Court partly granted review for injustice, set aside damages against Maniriho, and stopped the auction of matrimonial property already covered by final decisions.
The High Commercial Court halted an auction, holding that joint matrimonial property could not be mortgaged by one spouse alone without consent under Rwandan law.
The Court of Appeal found no injustice in a prior ruling upholding a property exchange made after matrimonial property had already been divided and registered individually.
The Commercial High Court dismissed Agaseke Bank’s appeal, upheld removal of the matrimonial house from mortgage, and confirmed that the bank had a duty to verify spousal consent.
The Commercial High Court upheld removal of a matrimonial home from mortgage after finding the bank failed to verify spousal consent and the loan was based on forged documents.
The contract between RUMANYIKA and RUZINDANA was valid; agreed interest and penalties were enforceable under Rwandan law; lack of spousal signature did not invalidate the contract as family property was not directly at issue; force majeure did not apply as non-performance could have been avoided; interest rate was reduced to 6% per annum as 12% was excessive; court fees and penalties were recalculated and allocated accordingly.
Source excerpt
Explore more
