|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2010 |
|
|
Omission to address a represented accused under s.293(2) is curable under s.388 if no failure of justice.
Criminal procedure — section 293(2) CPA — duty to inform accused of right to give evidence — Interpretation of Laws Act (Cap 1) s.53(2) — meaning of "shall" — conflict with CPA s.388 — curative effect where no failure of justice — representation by counsel.
|
30 December 2010 |
|
Whether former MOF officers became TRA employees and whether their removal under s.19(3) was lawful; appeal dismissed with costs.
Public employment – Transfer/assimilation to agency – Establishment Circular clause 11; Civil service law – Removal in public interest s.19(3) – scope and procedure; Delegation of executive power – transmission versus decision-making; Evidence – requirement of appointment letters and payroll proof; Judicial notice and trial judge’s independent research; Admissibility/weight of witnesses present in court.
|
30 December 2010 |
|
Consent/compromise judgments attract sections 15–16 Government Proceedings Act; certificates must reflect court order particulars.
Government Proceedings Act ss.15–16 – consent/compromise judgments fall within ss.15–16; section 16 certificate must state particulars of the court order (per O.XXI r.6 CPC); payment obligation of Permanent Secretary/Treasury on production of certificate; preliminary objections improper where resolution requires factual inquiry; executing court’s jurisdiction under s.38 CPC to determine execution disputes.
|
29 December 2010 |
|
Omission to personally inform an accused of right to testify is curable under s.388 CPA unless it causes failure of justice.
* Criminal Procedure Act, s.293(2) — accused’s right to give evidence and call witnesses; * Interpretation of Laws Act (Cap 1), s.53(2) — meaning of "shall"; * Criminal Procedure Act, s.388 — curative provision saving proceedings unless failure of justice; * Interaction of Cap 1 and CPA — mandatory wording subject to s.388; * Representation by counsel and failure of justice test.
|
22 December 2010 |
|
An appeal was struck out because a wrongly dated drawn order rendered it incompetent despite transitional-rule relief for submissions.
Procedural law — Court of Appeal Rules 2009 — transitional provision (Rule 130) allowing prior practice where impracticable; written submissions timing (Rule 106) — Decrees and Drawn Orders — Order XX Rule 7 as amended by Government Notice No. 223/2010 — conflicting provisions on dating of decrees — wrongly dated drawn order renders appeal incompetent — appeal struck out with liberty to refile without fees.
|
22 December 2010 |
|
Conviction quashed: improperly admitted post-mortem and missing hospital evidence left cause of death and guilt unproved.
Criminal law – manslaughter – admissibility and weight of post-mortem report; Inquests Act s.11 and CPA s.291 – procedure for medical reports; Evidence Act s.122 – adverse inference for non-production of witnesses/documents; circumstantial evidence – requirements for cogency and completeness; conviction quashed where cause of death not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
|
22 December 2010 |
|
The applicant's twenty‑year manslaughter sentence was reduced due to mitigating factors, ordering immediate release.
* Criminal law – Manslaughter – Sentence – Whether twenty years’ imprisonment was excessive. * Sentencing – Appellate interference – appellate court will disturb a sentence only where wrong principle applied or sentence is manifestly excessive or inadequate. * Mitigating factors – guilty plea, intoxication, accidental killing, remand custody and time already served may justify leniency. * Substitution of sentence – setting aside a long sentence to effect immediate release where mitigation outweighs severity.
|
17 December 2010 |
|
Conviction and confiscation quashed where the appellant's defence was ignored and circumstantial evidence failed to prove guilt.
* Criminal law – Illicit trafficking in psychotropic substances – Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Need to exclude all reasonable alternative hypotheses. * Criminal procedure – Duty of trial judge to evaluate defence evidence – Failure to consider defence is fatal. * Mens rea – Transporter/off‑loader status insufficient to prove knowledge or common intention without cogent supporting evidence. * Confiscation – Ancillary confiscation order unsustainable where conviction is unsafe.
|
16 December 2010 |
|
Prosecution’s failure to properly produce post‑mortem and hospital records undermined proof of cause of death and circumstantial guilt.
* Criminal law – Homicide – proof of cause of death – requirement to tender post‑mortem report and hospital treatment records; formal admission and right to summon medical practitioner under section 291 Criminal Procedure Act and Inquests Act. * Evidence – admissibility of medical reports – documents received merely at preliminary hearing improperly admitted must be expunged. * Evidence – circumstantial evidence – must be cogent, of definite tendency and form an unbroken chain excluding others; courts must avoid conjecture. * Failure to produce critical medical evidence may give rise to reasonable doubt and undermine prosecution case.
|
15 December 2010 |
|
Prison typist/typewriter delay, when certified and unchallenged, can constitute good cause to extend time to appeal.
Criminal procedure — extension of time to appeal — "good cause" under s.361(2) — delay caused by prison typist/typewriter malfunction — certified affidavit and absence of counter-affidavit — duties of officer-in-charge under Rule 75 — Court’s discretion under Rule 47 to grant extension.
|
13 December 2010 |
|
Conviction based on suspicion and ignored defence is unsafe; appeal allowed and property restored.
Criminal law – Illicit trafficking in psychotropic substance; circumstantial evidence – must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; failure of trial judge to consider defence evidence fatal to conviction; suspicion and hearsay insufficient for conviction; confiscation order dependent on safe conviction.
|
10 December 2010 |
|
Nullifying a sale and ordering eviction without hearing the purchaser violated the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Constitutional right to fair hearing – audi alteram partem – nullification of property disposition without hearing purchaser – revision to quash judgment – probate disputes and joinder of interested parties/Administrator.
|
8 December 2010 |
|
Section 372 empowers the High Court to entertain revision prompted by third parties; lack of locus standi was wrongly found.
Criminal procedure – Revision jurisdiction of the High Court under s.372 – "Any" criminal proceedings – Third-party locus standi – Distinction between civil and criminal appellate procedural rules (Rule 106).
|
2 December 2010 |
|
Failure to seek leave within 14 days and not prosecuting the appeal justified striking out the notice of appeal.
Civil procedure – Appeal – Striking out notice of appeal for non‑prosecution; Failure to seek leave under Rule 43(a) within 14 days; Application under Rule 82 to strike out notice; Effect of settlement on continuation of appeal.
|
2 December 2010 |
|
Section 372 confers broad High Court revision powers that permit third parties to invoke revision in criminal proceedings.
* Criminal procedure – Revision jurisdiction – s.372 Criminal Procedure Act – "any" criminal proceedings – High Court may exercise revision at the instance of third parties; locus standi of strangers to proceedings.
|
1 December 2010 |