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 High Court held that only the party who filed the principal suit (ikirego cy’iremezo) has standing to file an urgent application to stay execution. Since Rwabuneza Théoneste did not file the principal suit, his urgent application should not have been admitted by the lower court. The lower court's decision was therefore set aside as null and void.
Source excerpt
The urgent application to stay execution filed by Rwabuneza Théoneste was inadmissible because he was not the party who filed the substantive claim (kirego cy’iremezo) that would justify such an application. The lower court erred in admitting and ruling on the application, and its decision must be annulled.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed HOME BASKET SACCO KIMIRONKO’s appeal against refusal of a stay of execution pending review, finding no proven urgent or irreparable harm.
The Court of Appeal upheld a stay of execution that kept third-party purchasers in a house pending the main case, finding urgency and irreparable harm were shown.
The reasons advanced by Izere Pio for staying execution were insufficient, as there was no evidence of imminent risk that the land would be irretrievably lost if he succeeded in the main claim. The mere pendency of an opposition does not justify a stay of execution. The claim for damages by Mukantagara Bonifride was also unsupported as neither he nor his counsel appeared to substantiate the claim.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an urgent application to stay execution, holding that review proceedings do not automatically suspend enforcement and no damages are available.
The Court of Appeal held that an urgent request to stop an auction ordered by the Registrar General must first be filed in the Commercial Court, not the Court of Appeal.
The court held that the registrar's acceptance of the revival application did not bar the court from examining the merits. The appellants failed to provide credible, documented, exceptional reasons for their absence at the hearing. Their explanations were unsupported by evidence and contradicted by their conduct. Consequently, the application to revive the appeal was dismissed, and the urgent application to stay execution was inadmissible.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court dismissed Buregeya’s urgent request to stay execution, finding no proven irreparable harm. It also held that costs and lawyer’s fees are not awarded in urgent applications.
The Supreme Court held that illness and having young children were not sufficient grounds to stay execution of criminal judgments pending review.
Explore more
