Loading PDF...
This document is 7.8 MB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 22
Act
10|
Legislation
|
|
Repealed
|
Judgment
9|
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the charge valid and the prosecution proved unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt.
* Criminal law – Drugs Control and Enforcement Act – charge under amended Act (2017) – amendment did not repeal the principal Act.
* Evidence – witness inconsistencies – trivial discrepancies not material to credibility.
* Evidence – chain of custody – exhibit handling and transfers properly established (PGO 229(9)).
* Evidence – identification of exhibit by arresting officers and chemist.
* Criminal burden – defence failed to create reasonable doubt; prosecution proved unlawful possession beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
Reported
Judge concurs with conviction but dissents, arguing the death penalty is unconstitutional and life imprisonment preferable.
Criminal law – Murder – Sentencing – Death penalty – Constitutionality and human rights – Irreversibility and risk of wrongful execution – Life imprisonment as alternative.
|
|
Applicant’s prior conduct and an outdated medical report did not establish exceptional circumstances for bail pending appeal.
* Criminal procedure – Bail pending appeal – requires exceptional and unusual circumstances to be shown; distinct from bail pending trial. * Evidence – Ill health as ground for bail pending appeal requires current and corroborative medical evidence or affidavit from prison medical staff. * Prior compliance with bail conditions and administrative convenience are insufficient for bail pending appeal. * Procedural mis-citation that causes no prejudice does not vitiate the application.
|
|
Whether the respondents' customary occupancy rights are constitutional property and unlawfully extinguished without compensation.
* Constitutional law — Property — Customary/deemed rights of occupancy as constitutional "property" under Article 24 — deprivation without fair compensation prohibited. * Land law — Compensation — includes value added by occupier (Nyerere Doctrine of Land Value), not limited to unexhausted improvements. * Administrative/constitutional law — Ouster clauses — provisions ousting court jurisdiction unconstitutional; special tribunals must allow review or appeal. * Statute law — Severability — courts should strike down only offending provisions where remainder can operate. * Temporal effect — prior lawful extinguishments before the Bill of Rights remain effective.
|
|
An Act extinguishing customary occupancy rights without compensation and ousting courts violates constitutional property and equality rights.
Constitutional law – Land tenure – Validity of Act extinguishing customary/deemed occupancy rights without compensation – Right to property and fair compensation – Access to courts – Ousting judicial jurisdiction – Discrimination and proportionality of limitations on fundamental rights.
|
|
Charging the applicant under a repealed statute vitiates prosecution, warranting nullification and immediate release.
Criminal law – indictment must cite the valid statute – prosecution under a repealed law vitiates trial; incurable defect under section 388(1) CPA; revisional powers under section 4(2) AJA to nullify proceedings, quash conviction and order release.
|
|
High Court lacked jurisdiction to rehear a bail‑pending‑appeal application already decided; application struck out under functus officio.
* Criminal procedure – bail pending appeal – application struck out where identical earlier application was decided on the merits. * Doctrine of functus officio – once a court decides a matter it cannot normally revisit it. * Medical grounds for bail – alleged ill‑health and need for physiotherapy insufficient to reopen decided application. * Duty to disclose prior proceedings – non‑disclosure noted by court.
|
|
Prosecution under a repealed statute vitiates proceedings; convictions are quashed and release, not retrial, may be ordered.
Criminal law — Repeal of statute — Charging under repealed law — Effect of repeal: obliteration absent savings — Proceedings founded on repealed statute are nullities — Appellate jurisdiction s.4(2): quashing null proceedings — Retrial vs release where appellant served substantial time under illegal conviction.
|
|
A charge founded on a statute repealed before arraignment is fatal; proceedings nullified and conviction set aside.
Criminal law – Charge must cite valid statutory provision – Repeal of statute (AAA) by FACA (s.73) renders charges under repealed law invalid – Section 135(a)(ii) CPA mandatory – Defect fatal and not cured by s.388(1) CPA – Revisionary powers (AJA s.4(2)) to nullify proceedings – Retrial discretionary where accused served substantial custody.
|