Decisions and judgments of the Supreme Court have been and still are being referred to as binding precedents on all courts of the country.2 This binding character 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 as Juris est ars boni et 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 nature of 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 of the 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 wonder if 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.

Case Law

1.        Supreme Court Kigali, 11 Jan 2008, MUTEBWA case, case law RS/ Inconst/Pén.0001/07/CS. Case no RS/Inconst/Pén.0003/10/CS.

2.       Supreme Court, Kigali, 27/02/2009, Mgr SEBUNUNGURI V. Eglise Episcopale au Rwanda (E.E.R), case law no R.Soc.A.A 0001/08/CS.

3.       Supreme Court, Kigali, 24/12/2014, HARERIMANA V. SEBUKAYIRE, case law no RCAA 0018/13/CS.

4.      Supreme Court, Kigali, 23/10/2015, KOBIL PETROLEUM RWANDA SARL Vs GARAGE AUTO IMPERIAL SARL and MUKAREMERA Francine, nº RCOM 0002/13/CS.

5.       The Supreme Court, Kigali, 25/07/2008, NIYOYITA Vs the Prosecution, RPA 0074/07/CS.

6.       Other judgments

7.       The High   Court,   Kigali,   20/11/2015,   KAMANZI   Fran‎ois   Vs NYIRANSENGIMANA Jeannette, RCAA 0096/14/HC/KI

8.       Primary Court, Kicukiro, 28/03/2019, KBI LTD and Employees, RC 00413/2018/TB/KICU. Unpublished

9.       Intermediate Court, Nyagatare, 26/10/2018, BIZIMANA Leonidas V The State of Rwanda, Gatsibo District, et. al, RC 00005/2016/TGI/ NYG. Unpublished.

10.    Primary Court, Kacyiru, 06/11/2009, KACHELEWA V. NYIRARUKUNDO, RC 0223/08/TB/KCY.

Books

1.        Lee T. R., Stare Decisis in Historical Perspective: From the Founding Era to the Rehnquist Court, 52 V AND. L. REV. 647, 650 n.14, 1999.

2.       RUGGERO A. J., The Judicial Process: Text, Materials and Cases, American Case Law Series, 2nd ed., Washington, West publishing Co., 1996.

3.       DAVID L. BERLAND, Stopping the Pendulum: Why Stare Decisis Should Constrain the Court from Further Modification of the Search Incident to Arrest Exception.

4.      Fowler J. H., at al., Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court, Oxford University Press, 2007

5.       Cross R., From Precedent in English Law, 2nd, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1968.

6.       Leval P. N., Judging Under the Constitution: Dicta about Dicta, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1249, 2006.

Journal articles and other electronic sources

1.        O’Connor Dr. V., Common Law and Civil Law Traditions: PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE, 2012, International Network to Promote the Rule of Law, online: <http://www2.fjc.gov/sites/default/ files/2018/Common%20and%20Civil%20Law%20Traditions.pdf>.

2.       West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (2nd Edition) Volume 12 (Primary Documents) Hardcover – 2004, available at: < https://www. amazon.com/Wests-Encyclopedia-American-Primary-Documents/ dp/0787663794>.

3.       Supreme Court of Rwanda, Leading cases arising from civil courts in Rwanda, Vol. I., September 2016.

4.      Law Dictionary: Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.available at: < https://thelawdictionary.org/>.

5.       Goodhart A., “Precedent in English and Continental Law”, [1934] 50 Law Quarterly Review.

6.       Wahlgren P., ‘The Purpose and Usefulness of Jurisprudence’ [2010], Stockholm Institute for Scandianvian Law, online: <www. scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/48-30.pdf>.

7.       Fon V. and Parisi F., ‘Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis, [2006], International Review of Law and Economics, George Washington University and the University of Minnesota, pp. 519–535, online: <http://EconPapers.repec.org/ RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:519-535>.

8.       Koo Che Y. and Goo Yi J., “The Role of Precedents in Repeated Litigation”, University of Wisconsin, The Journal of Law, Economics& Organization, V9 N2, p. 2, online: <www.columbia.edu/~yc2271/ files/papers/precedents.pdf>.

9.       Hershovitz (ed), Exploring Law’s Empire, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.

10.    Hadfield G. K., The Quality of Law in Civil Code and Common Law Regimes: Judicial Incentives, Legal Human Capital and the Evolution of Law, University of Southern California, Law School, 2006, , online:

11.     <https://www.law.yale.edu/.../pdf/The_Quality_of_Law_in_Civil_ Code.pd...>.

12.    FLANDERS C., TOWARD A THEORY OF PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY, OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 62:55, p. 59, online:<http://adams. law.ou.edu/olr/articles/vol62/621-2%20flanders%20article%20 blu2.pdf>.