Loading PDF...
This document is 1.2 MB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 30
Act
15|
Legislation
|
|
Repealed
|
|
Repealed
|
Judgment
12|
Forgery, uttering and obtaining proved by expert evidence and confession; money‑laundering sustained as dealing in predicate proceeds; restitution and sentences adjusted.
Criminal law – forgery and related offences – handwriting expert and cautioned statement as corroborative proof; electronic bank documents – admissibility under Evidence Act and Electronic Transactions Act; procedural irregularities (plea recording, reading exhibits, s.210(3), s.231 CPA) curable if no prejudice; money laundering under AMLA s.12(a) sustainable by dealing in proceeds of a predicate offence; restitution corrected to proven sum; sentencing adjustments and concurrency principles.
|
|
Child’s testimony and medical report were credible; earlier-recorded evidence lost weight after lawful resummoning, and life sentences ordered concurrent.
Criminal law — Evidence Act s127(2),(6) — Child of tender years — Requirements for promise to tell the truth; Medical evidence — PF3 admissibility — competence of examining practitioner; Criminal Procedure Act s214 — resummoning witnesses and evidential effect of earlier-recorded testimony; Sentence — multiple life terms and concurrency; Appellate revisional powers.
|
|
A nine‑hour gap between threat and killing negates provocation; convictions for murder and a single death sentence were upheld.
* Criminal law – Murder – Provocation: provocation must be sudden and leave no time for passion to cool under ss.201–202 Penal Code; nine‑hour interval defeats the defence. * Evidence – Extrajudicial/cautioned statements and post‑mortem reports can establish malice aforethought. * Sentencing – omnibus death sentence corrected; death pronounced on one count only (Agnes Doris Liundi).
|
|
The appellant's admission of essential facts was unequivocal; conviction upheld but 30-year sentence reduced for sentencing error.
* Criminal procedure – Plea of guilty – requirement that plea be perfect, unambiguous and complete – recording of facts and accused’s opportunity to dispute or explain. * Criminal law – Separate counts – plea to one count does not automatically negate admissions on another distinct count. * Sentencing – Education Act s.60A(3): statutory language "shall be liable to" denotes maximum sentence, not mandatory term. * Appellate jurisdiction – power to revise manifestly excessive sentence where trial court misdirected itself.
|
|
Appeal allowed: life sentence for manslaughter reduced to 20 years for failure to consider mitigating factors.
Criminal law – Manslaughter; sentencing principles – manifestly excessive sentence; appellate interference; mitigation: guilty plea, remorse, first offender, time in custody; need to balance aggravating and mitigating factors.
|
|
Conviction unsafe where stolen items were not conclusively identified in court; appellate sentence enhancement was unjustified.
Criminal law – identification of stolen property – complainant must identify exhibits conclusively in court; mere identification at police station or by make insufficient; ownership must be proved. Criminal procedure – appeal against conviction – doubts in prosecution case resolved for accused. Sentencing – concurrent vs consecutive sentences for offences in same transaction; appellate enhancement and invocation of Minimum Sentences Act where inapplicable; manifestly excessive sentences.
|
|
The court quashed the appellant's conviction due to unreliable visual identification and an improperly sustained possession charge.
* Criminal law – visual identification – evidence of identification given as merely "there was light" is insufficient; courts must eliminate possibilities of mistaken identity (Waziri Amani). * Criminal law – robbery and possession of stolen property – possession count may be superfluous if robbery is charged and not pleaded in the alternative; possession must be independently proved. * Sentencing – omnibus sentence for multiple counts where one count is unsustainable is inappropriate. * Prosecutorial duty – elicit and develop crucial identification evidence during examination-in-chief and re-examination.
|
|
An appellate court will not disturb a lawful trial court sentencing discretion or modest compensation absent illegality or wrong principle.
* Criminal law – Acts intended to cause grievous harm – permanent injury to eye – sentencing discretion. * Sentencing – appellate interference limited to illegality, wrong principle or manifest excess/inadequacy. * Compensation – victim may seek greater relief by civil suit under section 348 Criminal Procedure Act. * Court will not alter sentence after it has been served.
|
|
Conviction quashed due to unreliable identification, unproven voluntariness of confession, and failure to call a crucial witness.
Criminal law – identification parades and dangers of dock identification; Evidence Act s.27 – voluntariness of cautioned/confessional statements; onus on prosecution to prove voluntariness; failure to call essential witness undermines chain of evidence; substantial irregularity vitiating conviction.
|
|
Court must impose the sentence stated in a valid plea agreement once accepted; trial courts lack discretion to depart from it.
Criminal law – Plea bargaining – Sentencing – Judicial discretion – Section 194D(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act – Court bound by terms of plea agreement – Discretion to sentence ousted by statute upon acceptance of agreement.
|