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 minimum sentence for defilement followed by cohabitation with a minor, where mitigating circumstances are present, is 15 years' imprisonment. Since Niragire Jean Paul had already received this minimum, the sentence could not be further reduced or suspended. No error was found in the lower court's application of the law.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the High Court (15 years imprisonment and RWF 5,100,000 fine) is the minimum allowed by the current statute for drug trafficking, and cannot be further reduced based on mitigating circumstances. Previous jurisprudence allowing greater reductions is no longer applicable due to statutory amendment.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that the second appeal was inadmissible because the lower courts did not apply a law that was not in force at the time of the offence. The issue raised by the appellant concerned non-compliance with legal provisions, which is not a valid ground for a second appeal under Rwandan law. The correct law (Organic Law No. 01/2012/OL, Article 325) was applied, and any procedural errors do not justify a second appeal.
Source excerpt
The appellate court found that the lower court had lawfully exercised its discretion and applied the correct legal provisions in reducing Ndungutse's sentence to the statutory minimum of 15 years, and that no further reduction was legally possible.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Niyonizera Antoine’s 15-year sentence for defilement followed by cohabitation with a minor could not be reduced further.
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction over second appeals where the damages awarded by the lower courts do not reach the statutory threshold of 75,000,000 Frw, regardless of the amount claimed by the applicant. Only the sum awarded by the lower courts is relevant for jurisdictional purposes.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a public servant may use either the general administrative appeal route or the special public service procedure, so Murekatete’s claim was admissible.
Kayitesi Joselyne was unlawfully terminated because ADEPR failed to notify the labour inspector of the list of employees to be terminated before the termination took effect, violating Article 21 of Law No 66/2018. She is entitled to damages equivalent to nine months' net salary and compensation for untaken annual leave. Other claims were denied due to lack of evidence or legal basis.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Bisangwa's claim for reinstatement, filed as a one-party explanatory petition under Article 178 of Law No 22/2018, was procedurally improper because the special statute governing public employees (Law No 017/2020) provides a specific procedure for challenging dismissal. The special law overrides the general law, and the lower courts erred by accepting the claim and granting relief. All decisions based on the improper procedure were set aside.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that pecuniary damages in motor vehicle accident cases must be awarded based on the specific law (Presidential Order No 31/01 of 25/08/2003 and Law No 41/2001), which requires proof of dependency. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence of dependency on the deceased; therefore, the pecuniary damages previously awarded were revoked. Awards for legal fees and funeral expenses were found to be lawful and reasonable.
Source excerpt
Explore more
