Precedent as a binding source of law under Rwandan Legal System: Applicability of Stare decisis under Rwandan Law

Abstract

Decisions and judgments of the Supreme Court have been and still are beingreferred to as binding precedents on all courts of the country.²This bindingcharacter was, by law, given only to Supreme Court decisions and judgments,but those of lower courts are not binding regardless of their super ruling or their publication in Law reports commonly referred to as “Ibyegeranyo”. On this note, lower courts would be advised to refer to the recent and specific precedent to harmonize the practice of lower courts. Either way, for the sake of justice once the precedent and the law seem to be unfair, the judge can apply the principle of equity and fairness commonly known in a Latin maxim asJurisest ars boniet aecqui.³

One may wonder whether there are certain criteria to be met for a court decision to serve as case law, and as a consequence examine the binding natureof contradicting decisions, since they are supposed to be referred to by other courts. It should be noted here that contradictory court decisions shall lead to a fragile legal environment wherein lower courts may doubt the relevant decision to be referred to. Can lower courts depart from referring to case law irrespective ofthe fact that it may,in the eyes of lower courts judges, be deemed unfair? There is a need to harmonize the practice of lower courts rather than waiting for the instructions of the Chief Justice or any other administrative decision that may be taken to correct some errors. This will also prevent the effects of such contradictions towards the rights of the parties.

In addition to this, the binding character of Supreme Court decisions may sometimes lead judges to refrain from referring to a legal text which can also solve the problem at hand. In this case, one may question this and wonderif such decisions outweigh the law. This work seeks to give a paradigm for the use of case law in the sense that it will give a firm harmony to their use by courts. Otherwise, precedents will be full of imperfections, and sometimes lead to inconsistencies. This article shall be looking at the harmonization of the practice of lower courts in the use of Supreme Court decisions in their daily adjudication of cases. On this note, we shall scrutinize the guiding rules and principle to be followed when the Supreme Court decisions are unjust or contradictory.