|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| April 2001 |
|
|
Failure to hear the applicant, a necessary party, vitiated the High Court decision; revision granted.
Administrative law – natural justice – audi alteram partem – failure to hear an affected third party vitiates proceedings. Revisionary jurisdiction – appropriate where affected person not a party and has no right of appeal. Joinder – cannot be required where party had no notice of proceedings.
|
25 April 2001 |
|
Petitioners may commence human-rights claims by petition or originating summons; certiorari is excluded but wide remedies exist.
Constitutional and human-rights jurisdiction – Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994 – Interpretation of section 5: petition v originating summons – reading in ‘or’ to avoid absurdity. Procedural law – access to court for human-rights complaints – liberal construction to facilitate remedies. Jurisdictional limits – section 8(k) excludes Part VII (prerogative orders) of the Law Reform Ordinance (Cap. 360) for purposes of the Act – certiorari not available under the Act. Remedies – wide powers under section 13(1) and (3) to grant necessary and appropriate orders to secure basic rights.
|
25 April 2001 |
|
An application for leave filed outside Rule 43(b)’s 14‑day limit is incompetent absent extension or credible corroboration.
Civil procedure – Applications for leave to appeal – Rule 43(b) – 14‑day time limit – application filed out of time – incompetence; Alleged delay caused by court registry official not an automatic excuse – need for extension application and corroborating affidavit; Lay status does not excuse non‑compliance with mandatory procedural rules.
|
20 April 2001 |
|
Whether the appellant hotel was liable for cattle purchased by a third party as its agent — appeal dismissed with costs.
Agency – whether a third party acted as agent for a company in purchasing and receiving goods – factor of repeated conduct, delivery notes, payments by principal, and custody of goods. Evidence – annexures to plaint not tendered at trial have no evidential value. Civil appeals – appellate court affirms trial court findings based on balance of probabilities.
|
19 April 2001 |
|
Application for revision struck out as time-barred, improperly seeking revision instead of appeal, and lacking mandatory affidavit.
Civil procedure – Revision – Time limitation for revision applications – Court of Appeal practice of 60-day rule for revision applications (Halais). Appellate procedure – Revisional jurisdiction not a substitute for appeal – applicant must seek leave to appeal if out of time. Court of Appeal Rules – rule 46(1) mandatory requirement for affidavit in support of notice of motion; non-compliance renders application incompetent.
|
9 April 2001 |
|
Application for revision struck out as time-barred, improperly invoked instead of appeal, and procedurally defective for lack of affidavit.
Civil procedure – Revision – limitation period for revision applications (60 days) – Halais principle applies; Appellate jurisdiction – revisional jurisdiction not to be used where appeal lies and applicant has not sought leave/extension; Court of Appeal Rules – rule 46(1) mandatory affidavit requirement for notices of motion.
|
9 April 2001 |
|
Reported
A defendant’s late filing of a written statement of defence cannot normally be remedied by retrospective extension once the 21‑day proviso has expired.
Civil procedure – extension of time – section 53 Civil Procedure Code vests unlimited discretion to enlarge time, but subject to specific proviso in Order VIII r.1(2) limiting applications for extension of time to within 21 days after expiry – retrospective extension for filing written statement of defence not ordinarily permitted – inordinate delay and gross negligence justify refusal – court must enforce amended rules to curb delays.
|
6 April 2001 |
|
Reported
Civil Practice and Procedure - Applications — Application for extension of time
to file a written statement of defence - Whether extension can be made at
any time or is restricted to within 21 days after expiry of the time provided
- Section 93 and Order VIII, rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Code 1966. |
6 April 2001 |
|
Failure to join and hear a necessary party breaches audi alteram partem and vitiates the High Court's decision.
Administrative law – revisional jurisdiction – when revision is available to a person who was not party to earlier proceedings. Natural justice – audi alteram partem – duty to hear interested/necessary parties before making orders affecting them. Civil procedure – right of appeal limited to parties to the proceedings; non-parties may seek revision.
|
5 April 2001 |
|
Victim perception and purposive construction can render a toy pistol sufficient for armed robbery and thirty-year minimum sentence.
Criminal law – robbery – armed robbery versus robbery with violence – statutory definition of "arms" – purposive construction and victim perception – admissibility and corroboration of retracted confession.
|
5 April 2001 |
|
Counsel's negligence in failing to prosecute an appeal does not justify invoking revisional jurisdiction; appeal, not revision, is the proper remedy.
Civil procedure – Revisional jurisdiction – Limits on revisional jurisdiction; cannot be invoked as alternative to appeal except in exceptional cases or where matter is not appealable. Civil procedure – Counsel negligence – Failure to prosecute an appeal is not a ground for invoking revisional jurisdiction.
|
5 April 2001 |
|
Counsel's negligence in failing to prosecute an appeal does not justify invoking the Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Civil procedure – Revisional jurisdiction – Whether counsel's negligence in failing to prosecute an appeal justifies invoking revision – Revision not an alternative to appeal except in exceptional or non-appealable cases.
|
5 April 2001 |
|
Appellants' convictions quashed where evidence showed negligence and no agreement, corroboration, or proof matching the charge.
Criminal law – Conspiracy (s.384 Penal Code) – proof requires evidence of agreement between parties; coincidence and negligence insufficient. Criminal law – Aiding prisoner to escape (s.117 Penal Code) – requires conscious act or intent to facilitate escape; negligence does not suffice. Evidence – Accomplice testimony requires corroboration. Criminal procedure – Charge must correspond to evidence; variance invalidates conviction.
|
2 April 2001 |
|
Reported
High Court's enhancement of sentence in accused's absence violated mandatory right to be heard; conviction quashed for procedural and evidential defects.
Criminal procedure – failure to give accused opportunity to be heard before substituting conviction or enhancing sentence – mandatory requirement of section 29(a)(i), Magistrates' Courts Act 1984 – proceedings rendered nullity. Criminal evidence – identification – contradictions between complainant and investigating officer/village chairman as to identifying marks – insufficiency to prove ownership beyond reasonable doubt. Appellate jurisdiction – court may invoke suo motu revision under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, to correct irregularities affecting a non-appealing co-accused.
|
2 April 2001 |
(From the conviction and sentence ofthe High Court ofTanzania at Mbeya, Mchome, J. dated 5 April 1994, in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1994) Criminal Practice and Procedure - Right ofthe accused to be heard - Summons returned unserved — Court proceeds to hear the appeal in the absence of the accused/respondents - Whether proceedings were irregular - Section 34(4) ofthe Magistrates' Courts Act 1984. Criminal Practice and Procedure — Sentencing — Enhancement ofsentence - Sentence enhanced in the absence of the accused/respondents - Whether proceedings rendered a nullity - Section 29(a)(i) ofthe Magistrates ’ Courts ; Act 1984. |
2 April 2001 |
|
Court corrected High Court's misidentification and transposed facts by revising the judgment to record the appellant's success.
Civil procedure – Revision – Court may invoke revisional jurisdiction to correct non-appealable errors in High Court judgments. Civil procedure – Misidentification of parties and advocates and transposition of proved facts – material error justifying correction. Appellate Jurisdiction Act – section 4(3) – power to revise judgments not appealable. Costs – where judicial error causes revision, each party to bear own costs.
|
2 April 2001 |