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
Court of Appeal upheld convictions for defilement of a minor, confirmed the victim’s identity and age, and reduced each sentence from 22 to 15 years.
The Supreme Court held that compensation for permanent disability below 30% from a motor vehicle accident is calculated using SMIG, not the claimant’s salary.
The Supreme Court held that permanent disability under 30% is compensated using SMIG, not actual salary, and dismissed the retrial application.
The Court of Appeal held that it is bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation in RP 00003/2018/SC, which entitles a person granted a retrial on grounds of injustice to provisional release pending the new trial. The facts of Bado Bede's case are materially identical to those in the Supreme Court precedent, and there is no new law overruling that precedent. Therefore, Bado Bede must be released provisionally while awaiting retrial.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the decision in RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC could not be considered a binding precedent because the applicant failed to show that it represented a consistent line of authority or was relied upon in multiple cases. Furthermore, subsequent decisions by the same court contradicted the challenged position, indicating no settled precedent. Therefore, there was no legal basis to reverse the position under the stare decisis doctrine, and the application was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the Commercial High Court decision did not establish a settled precedent on exported services, so the Bar Association’s request lacked merit.
The Supreme Court held that there was no settled Commercial High Court position to reverse on VAT treatment of exported services, so the Bar Association’s request failed.
Where the Supreme Court President has ordered a retrial on grounds of injustice and the original judgment is not yet fully executed, execution is suspended by law and the convicted person must be granted provisional release pending the retrial, in accordance with Article 64(2) of Law No. 30/2018 and binding precedent.
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.
The Supreme Court found that the High Commercial Court's decision in RCOMA 00350/2019/HCC does not constitute a binding precedent, as it has not been consistently applied in subsequent cases and there is no established line of authority. Therefore, there is no legal basis to overturn the decision or issue a new guiding precedent. The application is dismissed for lack of grounds.
Source excerpt
Explore more
