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 of Appeal held APADEM’s appeal inadmissible, finding the appellants had lost in the lower courts on the same grounds, and awarded BRD costs.
The Supreme Court held that Ecobank wrongly sold Kantarama Félicie’s collateral after the guaranteed debt had been repaid and ordered Ecobank to pay compensation.
The Supreme Court held that Bugingo Claude’s suretyship was valid, but it did not cover the restructured loan he was not notified of, and he was released from liability.
The Court of Appeal held that SORAS AG Ltd had to pay the outstanding advance-payment guarantee to NAEB on first demand, regardless of work already performed.
The Supreme Court review court found a joint surety breached its guarantee obligations and overturned the prior judgment, awarding damages for late fees.
The Court of Appeal upheld liability of a guarantor for a bank loan, rejected new fraud arguments on appeal, and held that interest continued under the contract.
The Supreme Court reopened the case for injustice, found Radiant Insurance Company Ltd breached a joint surety contract, and awarded damages to Strong Constructions Ltd.
SORAS AG Ltd is unconditionally obligated under the advance payment guarantee to pay the outstanding amount upon first demand by NAEB, regardless of the value of works executed or the use of the advance, as per the terms of the guarantee and applicable law. The advance payment is not considered payment for completed works but must be reimbursed according to the contract and procurement law.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that Rwanda Tea Trading Ltd breached its loan contract and that the factory project stoppage was not force majeure excusing repayment.
The Supreme Court found that Rwagasana and Mukakimenyi are jointly liable for the principal loan and late fines as per the contract and expert report, that the interest rate of 19.25% for late fines is valid due to borrower’s acceptance and contractual stipulation, that procedural and counsel fees must be awarded at the court’s discretion and not strictly by contract percentage, that expert fees are recoverable by the bank, and that Mukakimenyi is jointly liable as she signed all relevant agreements.
Source excerpt
Explore more
